previous next


ATHE´NAE (Ἀθῆναι; in Hom. Od. 7.80, Ἀθήνη: Eth. Ἀθηναῖος, Eth. Atheniensis), the capital of Attica.

I. Situation.

Athens is situated between four and five miles from the sea-coast, in the central plain of Attica, which is enclosed by mountains on every side except the south, where it is open to the sea. This plain is bounded on the NW. by Mt. Parnes, on the NE. by Mt. Pentelicus, on the SE. by Mt. Hymettus, and on the W. by Mt. Aegaleos. In the southern part of the plain there rise several eminences. Of these the most prominent is a lofty insulated mountain, with a conical peaked summit, now called the Hill of St. George, which used to be identified by topographers with the ancient Anchesmus, but which is now admitted to be the more celebrated Lycabettus. This mountain, which was not included within the ancient walls, lies to the north-east of Athens, and forms the most striking feature in the environs of the city. It is to Athens, as a modern writer has aptly remarked, what Vesuvius is to Naples or Arthur's Seat to Edinburgh. South-west of Lycabettus there are four hills of moderate height, all of which formed part of the city. Of these the nearest to Lycabettus, and at the distance of a mile from the latter, was the ACROPOLIS, or citadel of Athens, a square craggy rock rising abruptly about 150 feet, with a flat summit of about 1000 feet long from east to west, by 500 feet broad from north to south. Immediately west of the Acropolis is a second hill of irregular form, the AREIOPAGUS. To the south-west there rises a third hill, the PNYX, on which the assemblies of the citizens were held; and to the south of the latter is a fourth hill, known as the MUSEIUM. On the eastern and western sides of the city there run two small streams, both of which are nearly exhausted by the heats of summer and by the channels for artificial irrigation before they reach the sea. The stream on the east, called the ILISSUS was joined by the Eridanus close to the Lyceium outside the walls, and then flowed in a southwesterly direction through the southern quarter of the city. The stream on the west, named the CEPHISSUS runs due south, at the distance of about a mile and a half from the walls. South of the city was seen the Saronic Gulf, with the harbours of Athens.

The Athenian soil and climate exercised an important influence upon the buildings of the city. They are characterized by Milton in his noble lines:--

Where on the Aegean shore a city stands Built nobly, pure the air, and light the soil.
The plain of Athens is barren and destitute of vegetation, with the exception of the long stream of olives which stretch from Mt. Parnes by the side of the Cephissus to the sea. “The buildings of the city possessed a property produced immediately by the Athenian soil. Athens stands on a bed of hard limestone rock, in most places thinly covered by a meagre surface of soil. From this surface the rock itself frequently projects, and almost always is visible. Athenian ingenuity suggested, and Athenian dexterity has realized, the adaptation of such a soil to architectural purposes. Of this there remains the fullest evidence. In the rocky soil itself walls have been hewn, pavements levelled, steps and seats chiselled, cisterns excavated and niches scooped; almost every object that in a simple state of society would be necessary either for public or private fabrics, was thus, as it were, quarried in the soil of the city itself.” (Wordsworth, Athens and Attica, p. 62.)

The surpassing beauty and clearness of the Athenian atmosphere naturally allowed the inhabitants to pass much of their time in the open air. Hence, as the same writer remarks, “we may in part account for the practical defects of their domestic architecture, the badness of their streets, and the proverbial meanness of the houses of the noblest individuals among them. Hence certainly it was that in the best days of Athens, the Athenians worshipped, they legislated, they saw dramatic representations, under the open sky.” The transparent clearness of the atmosphere is noticed by Euripides (Eur. Med. 829), who describes the Athenians as ἀεί διὰ λαμπροτάτον Βαίνοντες ἁβρῶς αἰθέρος´. Modern travellers have not failed to notice the same peculiarity. Mr. Stanley speaks “of the transparent clearness, the brilliant colouring of an Athenian sky; of the flood of fire with which the marble columns, the mountains and the sea, are all bathed and penetrated by an illumination of an Athenian sunset.” The epithet, which Ovid (Art. Am. 3.389) applies to Hymettus--“purpureos colles Hymetti,” is strictly correct; and the writer, whom we have just quoted, mentions “the violet hue which Hymettus assumes in the evening sky, in contrast to the glowing furnace of the rock of Lycabettus, and the rosy pyramid of Pentelicus.” (Stanley, in Classical Museum, vol, i. pp. 60, 61.)

We draw upon another intelligent traveller for a description of the scenery of Athens. “The great national amphitheatre of which Athens is the centre, possesses, in addition to its beauty, certain features of peculiarity, which render it the more difficult to form any adequate idea of its scenery, but from personal view. The chief of these is a certain degree of regularity, or rather of symmetry, in the arrangement of the principal parts of the landscape, which enables the eye the better to apprehend its whole extent and variety at a single glance, and thus to enjoy the full effect of its collective excellence more perfectly [p. 1.256]

  • A. The Asty.
  • B. Peiraeeus.
  • C. Munychia.
  • D. Phalerum.
  • EE, FF. The Long Walls; EE the northern wall, and FF the southern wall.
  • GG. The Phaleric Wall.
  • H. Harbour of Peiraeeus.
  • I. Phaleric Bay.
  • 1. The Cephissus.
  • 2. The Ilissus.
  • 3. The Eridanus.
  • 4. Mount Hymettus.
  • 5. Mount Lycabettus.
  • 6. Mount Anchesmus.
  • 7. Mount Corydallos.
  • 8. Mount Poecilum. (This mountain and 7 are parts of the range of Aegaleos.)
  • 9. The outer Cerameicus.
  • 10. Academia.
  • 11. Oeum Cerameicum?
  • 12. Colonus.
  • 13. Acharnae.
  • 14. Cropeia.
  • 15. Paeonidae.
  • 16. Eupyridae.
  • 17. Alopece.
  • 18. Larissa.
  • 19. Halimus.
  • 20. Prospalta.
  • 21. Ceiriadae?
  • 22. Aexone.
  • 23. Thymoetia.
  • 24. Corydallus.
  • 25. Xypete? (Troja.)
  • 26. Hermus.
  • 27. Oia.
  • 28. Upper Agryle.
  • 29. Lower Agryle.

[p. 1.257] than where the attention is distracted by a less orderly accumulation even of beautiful objects. Its more prominent characteristics are: first, the wide extent of open plain in the centre; secondly, the three separate ranges of mountain,--Hymettus, Pentelicus, and Parnes,--to the eye of nearly the same height, and bounding the plain at unequal distances on three sides, to the south-east, north-east, and north-west; thirdly, the sea on the remaining side, with its islands, and the distant mainland of Peloponnesus: fourthly, the cluster of rocky protuberances in the centre of the plain, the most striking of which either form part of the site of the city, or are grouped around it; and fifthly, the line of dark dense olive groves, winding like a large green river through the heart of the vale. Any formality, which might be expected to result from so symmetrical an arrangement of these leading elements of the composition, is further interrupted by the low graceful ridge of Turcovouni, extending behind the city up the centre of the plain; and by a few more marked undulations of its surface about the Peiraeeus and the neighbouring coast. The present barren and deserted state of this fair, but not fertile region, is perhaps rather favourable than otherwise to its full picturesque effect, as tending less to interfere with the outlines of the landscape, in which its beauty so greatly consists, than a dense population and high state of culture.” (Mure, Tour in Greece, vol. ii. p. 37.)


It is proposed to give here only a brief account of the history of the rise, progress, and fall of the City, as a necessary introduction to a more detailed examination of its topography. The political history of Athens forms a prominent part of Grecian history, and could not be narrated in this place at sufficient length to be of any value to the student. The city of Athens, like many other Grecian cities, was originally confined to its Acropolis, and was afterwards extended over the plain and the adjacent hills. The original city on the Acropolis was said to have been built by Cecrops, and was hence called CECROPIA (Κεκροπία) even in later times. (Strab. ix. p.397; Eur. Supp. 658, El. 1289.) Among his successors, the name of Erechtheus I., also called Erichthonius, was likewise preserved by the buildings of Athens. This king is said to have dedicated to Athena a temple on the Acropolis, and to have set up in it the image of the goddess, made of olive wood,--known in later times as the statue of Athena Polias, the most sacred object in all Athens. Erechtheus is further said to have been buried in this temple of Athena, which was henceforth called the ERECHTHEIUM. In his reign the inhabitants of the city, who were originally Pelasgians and called Cranai, and who were afterwards named Cecropidae from Cecrops, now received the name of Athenians, in consequence of the prominence which was given by him to the worship of Athena. (Hdt. 8.44.) Theseus, the national hero of Attica, is still more celebrated in connection with the early history of the city. He is said to have united into one political body the twelve independent states into which Cecrops had divided Attica, and to have made Athens the capital of the new state. This important revolution was followed by an increase of the population of the city, for whose accommodation Theseus enlarged Athens, by building on the ground to the south of the Cecropia or Acropolis. (Comp. Thuc. 2.15.) The beautiful temple--the THESEIUM--erected at a later time in honour of this hero, remains in existence down to the present day. Homer mentions the city of Athens, and speaks of the temple of Athena in connection with Erechtheus. (Hom. Il. 2.546, seq.) It was during the mythical age that the Pelasgians are said to have fortified the Acropolis. Their name continued to be given to the northern wall of the Acropolis, and to a space of ground below this wall in the plain. (Paus. 1.28.3; Thuc.2.17.)

In the historical age the first attempt to embellish Athens appears to have been made by Peisistratus and his sons (B.C. 560--514). Like several of the other Grecian despots, they erected many temples and other public buildings. Thus we are told that they founded the temple of Apollo Pythius (Thuc. 6.54), and commenced the gigantic temple of the Olympian Zeus, which remained unfinished for centuries. (Aristot. Pol. 5.11.) In B.C. 500, the Dionysiac theatre was commenced on the south-eastern slope of the Acropolis, in consequence of the falling of the wooden construction in which the early dramas had been performed; but the new theatre was not completely finished till B.C. 340, although it must have been used for the representation of plays long before that time. (Paus. 1.29.16 ; Plut. Vit. X. Orat. pp. 841, 852.)

A new era in the history of the city commences with its capture by Xerxes, who reduced it almost to a heap of ashes, B.C. 480. This event was followed by the rapid development of the maritime power of Athens, and the establishment of her empire over the islands of the Aegean. Her own increasing wealth, and the tribute paid her by the subject states, afforded her ample means for the embellishment of the city; and during the half century which elapsed between the battle of Salamis and the commencement of the Peloponnesian war, the Athenians erected those masterpieces of architecture which have been the wonder and admiration of all succeeding ages. Most of the public buildings of Athens were erected under the administration of Themistocles, Cimon, and Pericles. The first of these celebrated men could do little towards the ornament of Athens; but Cimon and Pericles made it the most splendid city of Greece. The first object of Themistocles was to provide for the security of Athens by surrounding it with fortified walls. The new walls, of which we shall speak below, were 60 stadia in circumference, and embraced a much greater space than the previous walls; but the whole of this space was probably never entirely filled with buildings. The walls were erected in great haste, in consequence of the attempts of the Spartans to interrupt their progress; but though built with great irregularity, they were firm and solid. (Thuc. 1.93.) After providing for the security of the city, the next object of Themistocles was to extend her maritime power. Seeing that the open roadstead of Phalerum, which had been previously used by the Athenians, was insecure for ships, he now resolved to fortify the more spacious harbours in the peninsula of Peiraeeus. He surrounded it with a wall, probably not less than 14 or 15 feet thick; but the town was first regularly laid out by Hippodamus, of Miletus, in the time of Pericles.

Under the administration of Cimon the Theseium was built, and the Stoa Poecilé adorned with paintings by Micon, Polygnotus, and Pantaenus. Cimon [p. 1.258]planted and adorned the Academy and the Agora; and he also built the southern wall of the Acropolis, which continued to be called by his name.

It was to Pericles, however, that Athens was chiefly indebted for her architectural splendour. On the Acropolis, he built those wonderful works of art, the Parthenon, the Erechtheium, and the Propylaea; in the city he erected a new Odeium; and outside the walls he improved and enlarged the Lyceium. The completion of the Erechtheium appears to have been prevented by the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war ; but the Parthenon, the Propylaea, and the Odeium, were finished in the short space of 15 years. He also connected Athens with Peiraeeus by the two long walls, and with Phalerum by a third wall, known by the na-ne of the Phaleric wall.

The Peloponnesian war put a stop to any further public buildings at Athens. On the capture of the city in B.C. 404, the long walls and the fortifications of the Peiraeeus were destroyed by the Lacedaemonians; but they were again restored by Conon in B.C. 393, after gaining his great naval victory over the Lacedaemonians off Cnidus. (Xen. Hell. 4.8. 10; Diod. 14.85.). The Athenians now began to turn their thoughts again to the improvement of their city; and towards the close of the reign of Philip, the orator Lycurgus, who was entrusted with the management of the finances, raised the revenue to 1200 talents, and thus obtained means for defraying the expenses of public buildings. It was at this time that the Dionysiac theatre and the Stadium were completed, and that further improvements were made in the Lyceium. Lycurgus also provided for the security of the city by forming a magazine of arms in the Acropolis, and by building dock-yards in the Peiraeeus. (Plut. Vit. X. Orat. p. 841, seq.)

After the battle of Chaeroneia (B.C. 338) Athens became a dependency of Macedonia,--though she continued to retain her nominal independence down to the time of the Roman dominion in Greece. It was only on two occasions that she suffered materially from the wars, of which Greece was so long the theatre. Having sided with the Romans in their war with the last Philip of Macedonia, this monarch invaded the territory of Athens; and though the walls of the city defied his attacks, he destroyed all the beautiful temples in the Attic plain, and all the suburbs of the city, B.C. 200. (Liv. 31.26.) Athens experienced a still greater calamity upon its capture by Sulla in B.C. 86. It had espoused the cause of Mithridates, and was taken by assault by Sulla after a siege of several months. The Roman general destroyed the long walls, and the fortifications of the city and of Peiraeeus; and from this time the commerce of Athens was annihilated, and the maritime city gradually dwindled into an insignificant place.

Under the Romans Athens continued to enjoy great prosperity. She was still the centre of Grecian philosophy, literature and art, and was frequented by the Romans as a school of learning and refinement. Wherever the Grecian language was spoken, and the Grecian literature studied, Athens was held in respect and honour; and, as Leake has remarked, we cannot have a more striking proof of this fact than that the most remarkable buildings erected at Athens, after the decline of her power, were executed at the expense of foreign potentates. The first example of this generosity occurred in B.C. 275, when Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, built a gymnasium near the temple of Theseus (Paus. 1.17.2). About B.C. 240 Attalus, king of Pergamus, ornamented the south-east wall of the Acropolis with four compositions in statuary. (Paus 1.25.2.) In honour of these two benefactors, the Athenians gave the names of Ptolemais and Attalis to the two tribes, which had been formed by Demetrius Poliorcetes on the liberation of Athens from Cassander, and which had been named Demetrias and Antigonis in honour of Demetrius and his father Antigonus. (Paus. 1.5.5, 8.1.)

About B.C. 174 Antiochus Epiphanes commenced the completion of the temple of Zeus Olympius, which had been left unfinished by the Peisistratidae, but the work was interrupted by the death of this monarch. Soon after the capture of Athens by Sulla, Ariobarzanes II., king of Macedonia, repaired the Odeium of Pericles, which had been partially destroyed in the siege. Julius Caesar and Augustus contributed to the erection of the portico of Athena Archegetis, which still exists.

But Hadrian (A.D. 117--138) was the greatest benefactor of Athens. He not only completed the temple of Zeus Olympius, which had remained unfinished for 700 years, but adorned the city with numerous other public buildings,--two temples, a gymnasium, a library and a stoa,--and gave the name of Hadrianopolis to a new quarter of the city, which he supplied with water by an aqueduct. (Comp. Paus. 1.18.) Shortly afterwards a private individual emulated the imperial munificence. Herodes Atticus, a native of Marathon, who lived in the reigns of Antoninus and M. Aurelius, built a magnificent theatre on the south-western side of the Acropolis, which bore the name of his wife Regilla, and also covered with Pentelic marble the seats in the Stadium of Lycurgus.

Athens was never more splendid than in the time of the Antonines. The great works of the age of Pericles still possessed their original freshness and perfection (Plut. Per. 13); the colossal Olympieium--the largest temple in all Greece,--had at length been completed; and the city had yet lost few of its unrivalled works of art. It was at this epoch that Athens was visited by Pausanias, to whose account we are chiefly indebted for our knowledge of its topography. From the time of the Antonines Athens received no further embellishments, but her public buildings appear to have existed in undiminished glory till the third or even the fourth century of the Christian era. Their gradual decay may be attributed partly to the declining prosperity of the city, which could not afford to keep them in repair, and partly to the fall of paganism and the progress of the new faith.

The walls of Athens, which bad been in ruins since the time of their destruction by Sulla, were repaired by Valerian in A.D. 258 (Zosim. 1.29); and the fortifications of the city protected it from the attacks of the Goths and the other barbarians. In the reign of Gallienus, A.D. 267, the Goths forced their way into the city, but were driven out by Dexippus, an Athenian. In A.D. 396 Alaric appeared before Athens, but not having the means of taking it by force, he accepted its hospitality, and entered it as a friend.

Notwithstanding the many edicts issued against paganism by Theodosius, Arcadius, Honorius, and Theodosius the younger in the fourth and fifth centuries, the pagan religion continued to flourish at [p. 1.259]Athens till the abolition of its schools of philosophy by Justinian in the sixth century. It was probably at this time that many of its temples were converted into churches. Thus the Parthenon, or temple of the Virgin-goddess, became a church consecrated to the Virgin-Mother; and the temple of Theseus was dedicated to the warrior St. George of Cappadocia. The walls of Athens were repaired by Justinian. (Procop. de Aedif. 4.2.)

During the middle ages Athens sunk into a provincial town, and is rarely mentioned by the Byzantine writers. After the capture of Constantinople by the Latins in 1204, Boniface, Marquis of Montferrat, obtained the greater part of northern Greece, which he governed under the title of king of Thessalonica. He bestowed Athens as a duchy upon one of his followers; and the city remained in the hands of the Franks, with many alternations of fortune, till its incorporation into the Turkish empire in 1456. The Parthenon was now converted from a Christian church into a Turkish mosque. In 1687 the buildings of the Acropolis suffered severe injury in the siege of Athens by the Venetians under Morosini. Hitherto the Parthenon had remained almost uninjured for 2,000 years; but it was now reduced to a ruin by the explosion of a quantity of powder which had been placed in it by the Turks. “A few years before the siege, when Wheler, Spon, and De Nointel visited Athens, the Propylaea still preserved its pediment; the temple of Victory Apterus was complete; the Parthenon, or great temple of Minerva, was perfect, with the exception of the roof, and of the central figures in the eastern, and of two or three in the western pediment; the Erechtheium was so little injured that it was used as the harem of a Turkish house; and there were still remains of buildings and statues on the southern side of the Parthenon. If the result of the siege did not leave the edifices of the Acropolis in the deplorable state in which we now see them, the injury which they received on that occasion was the cause of all the dilapidation which they have since suffered, and rendered the transportation of the fallen fragments of sculpture out of Turkey their best preservative from total destruction.” (Leake, Topography of Athens, p. 86.) Spon and Wheler visited Athens in 1675; and have left an account of the buildings of the Acropolis, as they existed before the siege of Morosini. In 1834 Athens was declared the capital of the new kingdom of Greece; and since that time much light has been thrown upon the topography of the ancient city by the labours of modern scholars, of which an account is given in the course of the present article.


Athens consisted of three distinct parts, united within one line of fortifications.
    1. THE ACROPOLIS or POLIS ( Ἀκρόπολις Πόλις,). From the city having been originally confined to the Acropolis, the latter was constantly called Polls in the historical period. (Thuc. 2.15.) It is important to bear this fact in mind, since the Greek writers frequently use the word Polis, without any distinguishing epithet to indicate the Acropolis. (Aesch. Eum. 687, Dind.; Aristoph. Lys. 759, 911; Arrian, Arr. Anab. 3.16.) Hence the Zeus of the Acropolis was surnamed Πολιεύσο and the Athena Πολιάς. At the same time it must be observed that Polls, like the word City in London, was used in a more extended signification. (Leake, p. 221, note.)
    2. THE ASTY (τὸ Ἄστυ), the upper town, in opposition to the lower town of Peiraeeus (Xen. Hell. 2.4. 10), and therefore, in its widest sense, including the Polis. Sometimes, however, the Asty is called the Lower City ( κάτω πόλις), in opposition to the Acropolis or Upper City. To prevent confusion we shall confine the term of Polis to the Acropolis, and Asty to the Upper City as distinguished from the Peiraeeus.
  • 3. THE PORT-TOWNS, Peiraeeus, including Munychia and Phalerum. Peiraeeus and Munychia were surrounded by the same fortifications, and were united to the Asty by the Long Walls. Phalerum, the ancient port-town of Athens, was also united for a time to the Asty by the Phaleric wall, but was not included within the fortifications of Peiraeeus.

The topography of these three divisions of Athens will be given in succession, after describing the walls and gates, and making some remarks upon the extent and population of the city.


The true position of the Walls of the Asty was first pointed out by Forchhammer, in his able essay on the Topography of Athens (published in the Kieler philologische Studien, Kiel, 1841). He successfully defended his views in the Zeitschrift für die Alterthumswissenschaft (1843, Nos. 69, 70), in reply to the criticisms of Curtius; and most modern scholars have acquiesced in the main in his opinions. The accompanying map of Athens, taken from Kiepert, gives the direction of the walls according to Forchhammer's views; but as Leake, even in the second edition of his Topography, has assigned a more limited extent to the walls of the Asty, the matter must be examined at some length, as it is one of great importance for the whole topography of the city.

It is in the direction of the western and southern portion of the walls that Forchhammer chiefly differs from his predecessors. Leake supposes that the walls built by Themistocles ran from the gate Dipylum across the crest of the hills of the Nymphs, of the Pnyx, and of the Museium, and then north of the Ilissus, which would thus have flowed outside the walls. This view seems to be supported by the fact that across the crest of the hills of Pnyx and Museium, the foundations of the walls and of some of the towers are clearly traceable; and that vestiges of the walls between Museium and Enneacrunus may also be distinguished in many places. Forchhammer, on the other hand, maintains that these remains do not belong to the walls of Themistocles, but to the fortifications of a later period, probably those erected by Valerian, when the population of the city had diminished. (Zosim. 1.29.) That the walls of Themistocles must have included a much greater circuit than these remains will allow, may be proved by the following considerations.

Thucydides gives an exact account of the extent of the fortifications of the Asty and the Harbours, including the Long Walls, as they existed at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war. He says (2.13) “the length of the Phaleric Wall (τὸ Φαληρικὸν τεῖχος) to the walls of the Asty was 35 stadia. The part of the walls of the Asty which was guarded was 43 stadia. The part that was left unguarded lay between the long wall and the Phaleric. Now the Long Walls (τὰ μακρὰ τείχη), running down to the Peiraeeus, were 40 stadia in length, of which [p. 1.260]the outer one (τὸ ἔξωθεν) was guarded. The whole circumference of Peiraeeus, with Munychia, was 60 stadia, but the guarded part was only half that extent.” It is clear from this passage that the Asty was connected with the port-towns by three walls, namely the Phaleric, 35 stadia long, and the two Long Walls, each 40 stadia long. The two Long Walls ran in a south-westerly direction to Peiraeeus, parallel to, and at the distance of 550 feet from one another. The Phaleric Wall appears to have run nearly due south to Phalerum, and not parallel to the other two; the direction of the Phaleric Wall depending upon the site of Phalerum, of which we shall speak under the port-towns. (See plan, p. 256.)

The two Long Walls were also called the Legs (τὰ Σκέλη, Strab. ix. p.395; Polyaen. 1.40; Brachia by Livy, 31.26), and were distinguished as the Northern Wall (τὸ Βόρειον τεῖχος, Plat. de Rep. iv. p. 439) and the Southern Wall (τὸ Νότιον, Harpocrat. s. v Διαμέσου; Aeschin. de Fals. Leg. § 51). The former is called by Thucydides, in the passage quoted above, the Outer (τὸ ἔξωθεν), in oppasition to the Inner or the Intermediate wall (τὸ διαμέσου τεῖχος, Harpocrat l.c.; Plat. Gorg. p. 455), which lay between the Phaleric and the northern Long Wall.

The northern Long Wall and the Phaleric Wall were the two built first. They are said by Plutarch to have been commenced by Cimon (Plut. Cim. 13); but, according to the more trustworthy account of Thucydides they were commenced in B.C. 457, during the exile of Cimon, and were finished in the following year. (Thuc. 1.107, 108 ) There can be no doubt that their erection was undertaken at the advice of Pericles, who was thus only carrying out more fully the plans of Themistocles to make Athens a maritime power and to secure an uninterrupted communication between the city and its harbours in time of war. Between B.C. 456 and 431,--the commencement of the Peloponnesian war,--the Intermediate wall was built upon the advice of Pericles, whom Socrates heard recommending this measure in the assembly. (Plat. Gorg. p. 455; comp. Plut. Per. 13; Harpocrat. s. v.) The object of building this intermediate wall was to render the communication between the Asty and Peiraeeus more secure. The distance between the northern Long Wall and the Phaleric was considerable; and consequently each of them required the same number of men to man them as the two Long Walls together, which were separated from one another by so small an interval. Moreover, the harbour of Phalerum was no longer used by the Athenian ships of war; and it was probably considered inexpedient to protect by the same fortifications the insignificant Phalerum and the all-important Peiraeeus.

After the erection of the Intermediate Wall, the Phaleric wall was probably allowed to fall into decay. When the Lacedaemonians took Athens, we find mention of their destroying only two Long Walls (Xen. Hell. 2.2), since the communication of the Asty with the Peiraeeus depended entirely upon the Long Walls. There can be no doubt that when Conon rebuilt the Long Walls after the battle of Cnidus (B.C. 393), he restored only the Long Walls leading to Peiraeeus (Xen. Hell. 4.8. 10; Paus. 1.2.2); and it is very probable that in their restoration he used the materials of the Phaleric Wall. From the end of the Peloponnesian war, we find mention of only two Long Walls. (Comp. Lys. c. Agorat. pp. 451, 453; Aeschin. de Fals. Leg. § 51; Liv. 31.26.)

Between the two Long Walls, there was a carriage road (ἁυαξιτός) leading from the Asty to Peiraeeus (Xen. Hell. 2.4. 10); and on either side of the road there appear to have been numerous houses in the time of the Peloponnesian war, probably forming a broad street between four and five miles in length. This may be inferred from the account of Xenophon, who relates (Hell. 2.2.3) that when the news of the defeat of the Athenian fleet at Aegospotami reached Peiraeeus, “a sound of lamentation spread from the Peiraeeus through the Long Walls to the Asty, as each person announced the news to his neighbour.” Moreover, it appears from a passage of Andocides (de Myst. p. 22, Reiske) that there was a Theseium within the Long Walls, which must be distinguished from the celebrated temple of Theseus in the Asty. In describing the stations assigned to the infantry, when the Boeotians advanced to the frontiers, Andocides says (l.c.), that the troops in the Asty were stationed in the Agora; those in the Long Walls, in the Theseium ; and those in Peiraeeus, in the Hippodameian Agora. It is worth noticing that Andocides calls the Long Walls the Long Fortress (τὸ μακρὸν τεῖλος), as one of the three great garrisons of Athens.

The Long Walls were repaired more than once after the time of Conon. A long and interesting inscription, originally published by Muller (De Munimentis Athenarum, Gött. 1836), and reprinted by Leake, contains a register of a contract entered into by the treasurer of the state for the repair of the walls of the Asty and Peiraeeus, and of the Long Walls. It is probable that this contract was made about B.C. 335, in order to continue the repairs which had been commenced by Demosthenes after the battle of Chaeroneia (B.C. 338). But between this time and the invasion of Attica by Philip in B.C. 200, the walls had fallen into decay, since we read of Philip making an irruption into the space between the ruined walls ( “inter angustias semiruti muri, qui brachiis duobus Piraeum Athenis jungit,” Liv. 31.26). Sulla in his siege of Athens (B.C. 87--86) used the materials of the Long Walls in the erection of his mounds against the fortifications of Peiraeeus. (Appian, App. Mith. 30.) The Long Walls were never repaired, for Peiraeeus sank down into an insignificant place. (Strab. ix. p.395.) The ruins (ἐρείπια) of the Long Walls are noticed by Pausanias (1.2.2). Their foundations may still be traced in many parts. “Of the northern the foundations, which are about 12 feet in thickness, resting on the natural rock, and formed of large quadrangular blocks of stone, commence from the foot of the Peiraic heights, at half a mile from the head of Port Peiraeeus, and are traced in the direction of the modern road for more than a mile and a half towards the city, exactly in the direction of the entrance of the Acropolis. The southern Long Wall, having passed through a deep vegetable soil, occupied chiefly by vineyards, is less easily traceable except at its junction with the walls of Peiraeeus (not Phalerum, as Leake says), and for half a mile from thence towards the city. Commencing at the round tower, which is situated above the northwestern angle of the Munychian (not the Phaleric) bay, it followed the foot of the hill, along the edge of the marsh, for about 500 yards; then assumed, for about half that distance, a direction to the northeastward, almost at a right angle with the preceding: [p. 1.261]from whence, as far as it is traceable, its course is exactly parallel to the northern Long Wall, at a distance of 550 feet from it.” (Leake, p. 417.)

The height of the Long Walls is nowhere stated; but we may presume that they were not lower than the walls of Peiraeeus, which were 40 cubits or 60 feet high. (Appian, App. Mith. 30.) There were towers at the usual intervals, as we learn from the inscription already referred to.

We now return to the Walls of the Asty. It is evident that the part of the walls of the Asty, which Thucydides says needed no guard, was the part between the northern Long Wall and the Phaleric Wall. The length of this part is said by the Scholiast in Thucydides to have been 17 stadia, and the circumference of the whole wall to have been 60 stadia. Thus the circuit of the Asty was the same as the circuit of Peiraeeus, which Thucydides estimates at 60 stadia. The distance of 17 stadia between the northern Long Wall and the Phaleric has been considered much too large; but it may be observed, first, that we do not know at what point the Phaleric wall joined the Asty, and, secondly, that the northern Long Wall may have taken a great bend in joining the Asty.

In addition to this we have other statements which go to show that the circuit of the Asty was larger than has been generally supposed. Thus, Dion Chrysostom says (Orat. vi. p. 87), on the authority of Diogenes of Sinope, “that the circuit of Athens is 200 stadia, if one includes the walls of the Peiraeeus and the Intermediate Walls (i. e. the Long Walls), in the walls of the city.” It is evident that in this calculation Diogenes included the portions of the walls both of the Asty and the Peiraeeus, which lay between the Long Walls; the 60 stadia of the Asty, the 60 stadia of Peiraeeus, the 40 stadia of the northern Long Wall, and the 40 stadia of the southern Long Wall making the 200 stadia. Other statements respecting the extent of the walls of Athens are not so definite. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (4.13, 9.68) compares the walls of Athens with those of Rome, and Plutarch (Plut. Nic. 17) with those of Syracuse; the walls of Rome being, according to Pliny (3.5), 23 miles and 200 paces, about 185 stadia; and those of Syracuse, according to Strabo (vi. p.270), 180 stadia.

There are good grounds for believing that the walls of Themistocles extended from the gate called Dipylum, along the western descent of the hills of Pnyx and Museium, including both of these hills within their circuit; that they then crossed the Ilissus near the western end of the Museium, and ran along the heights on the left of the river, including Ardettus and the Stadium within the city; after which, making a turn to the north, they again crossed the Ilissus, and leaving Mt, Lycabettus on the east, they ran in a semicircular direction till they rejoined the Dipylum. (See the plan of Athens.) According to this account, the Acropolis stands in the middle of the Asty, as Strabo states, while Leake, by carrying the walls across the crest of the hills of Pnyx and Museium, gives the city too great an extension to the east, and places the walls almost under the very heights of Lycabettus, so that an enemy from the slopes of the latter might easily have discharged missiles into, the city.

It is important to show that the Museium was within the city walls. This hill is well adapted for a fortress, and would probably have been chosen for the citadel of Athens, if the rock of the Acropolis had not been more suitable for the purpose. Now we are told that when Demetrius Poliorcetes delivered Athens from the tyranny of Lachares in B.C. 299, he first kept possession of the Peiraeeus, and after he had entered the city, he fortified the Museium and placed a garrison in it. (Paus. 1.25.8; Plut. Demetr. 34.) Pausanias adds (l.c.), that “the Museium is a hill within the ancient walls, opposite the Acropolis.” Now if the Museium stood within the walls, a glance at the map will show that the western slopes of the Pnyx hill must also have been included within them. Moreover, we find on this hill remains of cisterns, steps, foundations of houses, and numerous other indications of this quarter having been, in ancient times, thickly inhabited, a fact which is also attested by a passage in Aeschines (περὶ τῶν οἰκήσεων τῶν ἐν τῇ Πυκνὶ Aesch. in Timarch. p. 10, Steph. § 81, Bekk.). There is likewise a passage in Plutarch, which cannot be understood at all on the supposition that the ancient walls ran across the crest of the Pnyx hill. Plutarch says (Them. 19), that the bema of the Pnyx had been so placed as to command a view of the sea, but was subsequently removed by the Thirty Tyrants so as to face the land, because the sovereignty of the sea was the origin of the democracy, while the pursuit of agriculture was favourable to the oligarchy. The truth of this tale may well be questioned; but if the people ever met higher on the hill (for from no part of the place of assembly still remaining can the sea be seen), they could never have obtained a sight of the sea, if the existing remains of the walls are in reality those of Themistocles.

It is unnecessary to discuss at length the direction of the walls on the south and south-eastern side of the Asty. Thucydides says (2.15) that the city extended first towards the south, where the principal temples were built, namely, that of the Olympian Zeus, the Pythium, and those of Ge and of Dionysus ; and he adds, that the inhabitants used the water of the fountain of Callirrhoë, which, from the time of the Peisistratidae, was called Enneacrunus. A southerly aspect was always a favourite one among the Greeks; and it is impossible to believe that instead of continuing to extend their city in this direction, they suddenly began building towards the north and north-east. Moreover, it is far more probable that the walls should have been carried across the hills on the south of the Ilissus, than have been built upon the low ground immediately at the foot of these hills. That the Stadium was within the walls may be inferred from the splendour with which it was fitted up, and also from the fact that in all other Greek cities, as far as we know, the stadia were situated within the walls. Is it likely that the fountain Calirrhoë, from which the inhabitants obtained their chief supply of water, should have been outside the walls? Is it probable that the Heliastic judges, who were sworn at Ardettus (Harpocrat. s. v.), had to go outside the city for this purpose?

That no traces of the wails of Themistocles can be discovered will not surprise us, when we recollect the enormous buildings which have totally disappeared in places that have continued to be inhabited, or from which the materials could be carried away by sea. Of the great walls of Syracuse not a vestige remains; and that this should have been the case at Athens is the less strange, because we know that the walls [p. 1.262]facing Hymettus and Pentelicus were built of bricks baked in the sun. (Vitr. 2.8; Plin. Nat. 35.14.)


In estimating the extent of Athens, it is not sufficient to take into account the circuit of the walls; their form must also be borne in mind, or else an erroneous opinion will be formed of the space enclosed. Athens, in fact, consisted of two circular cities, each 60 stadia, or 7 1/2 miles, in circumference, joined by a street of 40 stadia, or 4 1/2 miles, in length. With respect to the population of Athens, it is difficult to assign the proportions belonging to the capital and to the rest of the country. The subject has been investigated by many modern writers, and among others by Clinton, whose calculations are the most probable.

The chief authority for the population of Attica is the census of Demetrius Phalereus, taken in B.C. 317. (Ctesicles, ap. Athen. 6.272b.) According to this census, there were 21,000 Athenian citizens, 10,000 metoeci (μέτοικοι), or resident aliens, and 400,000 slaves. Now we may assume from various authorities, that by the term citizens all the males above the age of 20 years are meant. According to the population returns of England, the proportion of males above the age of twenty is 2430 in 10,000. The families, therefore, of the 21,000 citizens amounted to about 86,420 souls; and reckoning the families of the metoeci in the same proportion, the total number of the free population of Attica was about 127,000 souls. These, with the addition of the 400,000 slaves, will give 527,000 as the aggregate of the whole population.

The number of slaves has been considered excessive; but it must be recollected that the agricultural and mining labour of Attica was performed by slaves; that they served as rowers on board the ships; that they were employed in manufactures, and in general represented the labouring classes of Modern Europe. We learn from a fragment of Hypereides, preserved by Suidas (s. v. ἀπεψηφίσατο), that the slaves who worked in the mines and were employed in country labour, were more than 150,000. It appears from Plato (de Rep. ix. p. 578d. e) that there were many Athenians, who possessed fifty slaves each. Lysias and Polemarchus had 120 slaves in their manufactory (Lys. c. Eratosth. p. 395); and Nicias let 1000 slaves to a person who undertook the working of a mine at Laurium. (Xenoph. de Vectig. 4.) There is therefore no good reason for supposing that the slaves of Attica are much overrated at 400,000, which number bears nearly the same proportion to the free inhabitants of Attica, as the labouring classes bear to the other classes in Great Britain.

If we go back from the time of Demetrius Phalereus to the flourishing period of Athenian history, we shall find the number of Athenian citizens generally computed at about 20,000, which would give about half a million as the total population of Attica. Twenty thousand were said to have been their number in the time of Cecrops (Philochorus, ap. Schol. ad Pind. 01. 9.68), a number evidently transferred from historical times to the mythical age. In B.C. 444 they were 19,000; but upon a scrutiny undertaken by the advice of Pericles, nearly 5000 were struck off the lists, as having no claims to the franchise. (Plut. Per. 37; Philoch. ap. Schol. ad Aristoph. Vesp. 716.) A few years afterwards (B.C.. 422) they had increased to 20,000 (Aristoph. Wasps 707); and this was the number at which they were estimated by Demosthenes in B.C. 331. (Dem. c. Aristog. p. 785.)

That the population of Attica could not have been much short of half a million may be inferred from the quantity of corn consumed in the country. In the time of Demosthenes the Athenians imported annually 800,000 medimni, or 876,302 bushels, of corn. (Dem. c. Leptin. p. 466.) Adding this to the produce of Attica, which we may reckon at about 1,950,000 medimni, the total will be 2,750,000 medimni, or 3,950,000 bushels. “This would give per head to a population of half a million near 8 bushels per annum, or 5 1/2 medimni, equal to a daily rate of 20 ounces and 7-10ths avoirdupois, to both sexes, and to every age and condition. The ordinary full ration of corn was a choenix, or the forty-eighth part of a medimnus, or about 28 1/2 ounces.”

It is impossible to determine the exact population of Athens itself. We have the express testimony of Thucydides (2.14) that the Athenians were fond of a country life, and that before the Peloponnesian war the country was decorated with houses. Some of the demi were populous: Acharnae, the largest, had in B.C. 431, 3000 hoplites, implying a free population of at least 12,000, not computing slaves. Athens is expressly said to have been the most populous city in Greece (Xen. Hell. 2.3. 24; Thuc. 1.80, 2.64); but the only fact of any weight respecting the population of the city is the statement of Xenophon that it contained more than 10,000 houses. (Xen. Mem. 3.6. 14, Oecon. 8.22.) Clinton remarks that “London contains 7 1/2 persons to a house; but at Paris formerly the proportion was near 25. If we take about half the proportion of Paris, and assume 12 persons to a house, we obtain 120,000 for the population of Athens; and we may perhaps assign 40,000 more for the collective inhabitants of Peiraeeus, Munychia and Phalerum.” Leake supposes the population of the whole city to have been 192,000; and though no certainty on the point can be attained, we cannot be far wrong in assuming that Athens contained at least a third of the total population of Attica.

The preceding account has been chiefly taken from Clinton (F. H. vol. ii. p. 387, seq., 2nd ed.) and Leake (p. 618), with which the reader may compare the calculations of Böckh. (Public Econ. of Athens, p. 30, seq., 2nd ed.) The latter writer reckons the population of the city and the harbours at 180,000.


Of the gates of the Asty the following are mentioned by name, though the exact position of some of them is very doubtful. We begin with the gates on the western side of the city.

    gates on the western side:

    1. Dipylum (Δίπυλον), originally called the Thriasian Gate (Θριασίαι Πύλαι), because it led to Thria, a demus near Eleusis (Plut. Per. 30), and also the Ceramic Gate (Κεραμεικαὶ Πύλαι), as being the communication from the inner to the outer Cerameicus (Philostr. Vit. Soph. 2.8; comp. Plut. Sull. 14), was situated at the NW. corner of the city. The name Dipylum seems to show that it was constructed in the same manner as the gate of Megalopolis at Messene, with a double entrance and an intermediate court. It is described by Livy (31.24) as greater and wider than the other gates of Athens, and with corresponding approaches to it on either [p. 1.263]side; and we know from other authorities that it was the most used of all the gates. The street within the city led directly through the inner Cerameicus to the Agora; while outside the gate there were two roads, both leading through the outer Cerameicus, one to the Academy (Liv. l.c.; Cic. de Fin. 5.1; Lucian, Scyth. 4), and the other to Eleusis. [See below, No. 2.] The Dipylum was sometimes called Δημιάδες Πύλαι, from the number of prostitutes in its neighbourhood. (Lucian, Dial. Mer. 4.3; Hesych. s. vv. Δημιάσι, Κεραμεικός; Schol. ad Aristoph. Equit. 769.)
  • It is exceedingly improbable that Pausanias entered the city by the Dipylum, as Wordsworth, Curtius, and some other modern writers suppose. [See below, No. 3.]
  • 2. The Sacred Gate (αἱ Ἱεραὶ Πύλαι), S. of the preceding, is identified by many modern writers with the Dipylum, but Plutarch, in the same chapter (Sull. 14), speaks of the Dipylum and the Sacred Gate as two different gates. Moreover the same writer says that Sulla broke through the walls of Athens at a spot called Heptachalcon, between the Peiraic and the Sacred Gates; a description which would scarcely have been applicable to the Heptachalcon, if the Sacred Gate had been the same as the Dipylum. [See the plan of Athens.] The Sacred Gate must have derived its name from its being the termination of the Sacred Way to Eleusis. But it appears that the road leading from the Dipylum was also called the Sacred Way; since Pausanias says (1.36.3) that the monument of Anthemocritus was situated on the Sacred Way from Athens to Eleusis, and we know from other authorities that this monument was near the Dipylum or the Thriasian Gate. (Plut. Per. 30; Hesych. sub voce Ἀνθεμόκριτος.) Hence, we may conclude that the Sacred Way divided shortly before reaching Athens, one road leading to the Sacred Gate and the other to the Dipylum. The street within the city from the Sacred Gate led into the Cerameicus, and joined the street which led from the Dipylum to the Agora. We read, that when the soldiers penetrated through the Sacred Gate into the city, they slew so many persons in the narrow streets and in the Agora, that the whole of the Cerameicus was deluged with blood, which streamed through the gates into the suburbs. (Plut. Sull. 14.)
    3. The Peiraic Gate ( Πειραϊκὴ Πύλη, Plut. Thes. 27, Sull. 14), S. of the preceding, from which ran the ἁμαξιτός or carriage road between the Long Walls, from the Asty to the Peiraeeus. It has been already remarked that the ἁμαξιτός lay between the two Long Walls, and the marks of carriage wheels may still be seen upon it. It was the regular road from the Asty to the Peiraeeus; and the opinion of Leake (p. 234), that even during the existence of the Long Walls, the ordinary route from the Peiraeeus to the Asty passed to the southwards of the Long Walls, has been satisfactorily refuted by Forchhammer (p. 296, seq.). The position of the Peiraic Gate has been the subject of much dispute. Leake places it at some point between the hill of Pnyx and Dipylum; but we have no doubt that Forchhammer is more correct in his supposition that it stood between the hills of Pnyx and of Museium. The arguments in favour of their respective opinions are stated at length by these writers. (Leake, p. 225, seq., Forchhammer, p. 296, seq.) Both of them, however, bring forward convincing arguments, that Pausanias entered the city by this gate, and not by the Dipylum as Wordsworth and Curtius supposed, nor by a gate between the Hill of the Nymphs and the Dipylum, as Ross has more recently maintained. (Ross, in Kunstblatt, 1837, No. 93.)

    4. The Melitian Gate (αἱ Μελιτίδες Πύλαι), at the SW. corner of the city, so called from the demus Melite, to which it led. Just outside this gate were the Cimonian sepulchres, in which Thucydides, as well as Cimon, was buried. In a hill extending westwards from the western slope of the Museium, on the right bank of the Ilissus, Forchhammer (p. 347) discovered two great sepulchres, hewn out of the rock, which he supposes to be the Cimonian tombs. The valley of the Ilissus was here called Coele (Κοίλη), a name applied as well to the district within as without the Melitian Gate. This appears from a passage in Herodotus (6.103), who says that Cimon was buried before the city at the end of the street called διὰ Κοίλης, by which he clearly means a street of this name within the city. Other authorities state that the Cimonian tombs were situated in the district called Coele, and near the Melitian Gate. (Marcellin. Vit. Thuc. § § 17, 32, 55; Anonym. Vit. Thuc. sub fin.; Paus. 1.23.9; Plut. Cim. 4, 19.) Miller erroneously placed the Peiraic Gate on the NE. side of the city.

    On the southern side:

    5. The Itonian Gate (αἱ Ἰτωνίαι Πύλαι), not far from the Ilissus, and leading to Phalerum. The name of this gate is only mentioned in the Platonic dialogue named Axiochus (100.1), in which Axiochus is said to live near this gate at the monument of the Amazon; but that this gate led to Phalerum is clear from Pausanias, who, in conducting his reader into Athens from Phalerum, says that the monument of Antiope (the Amazon) stood just within the gate. (Paus. 1.2.1.)

    On the northern side:

  • 8. The Herian Gate (αἱ Ἡρίαι Πύλαι), or the Gate of the Dead, so called from ἡρία, a place of sepulture. (Harpocrat. s. v.) The site of this gate is uncertain; but it may safely be placed on the north of the city, since the burial place of Athens was in the outer Cerameicus.
  • 9. The Acharniarn Gate (αἱ Ἀχαρνικαί Πύλαι Hesych. sub voce), leading to Acharnae.
    10. The Equestrian Gate (αἱ Ἱππάδες Πύλαι, Plut. Vit. X. Orat. p. 849c.), the position of which is quite uncertain. It is placed by Leake and others on the western side of the city, but by Kiepert on the NE., to the north of the Diomeian Gate.
    11. The Gate of Aegeus (αἱ Αἰγέως Πύλαι, Plut. Thes. 12), also of uncertain site, is placed by Miller on the eastern side; but, as it appears from Plutarch (l.c.) to have been in the neighbourhood of the Olympieium, it would appear to have been in the southern wall.

There were several other gates in the Walls of the Asty, the names of which are unknown [p. 1.264]


The first appearance of Athens was not pleasing to a stranger. Dicaearchus, who visited the city in the fourth century before the Christian era, describes it “as dusty and not well supplied with water; badly laid out on account of its antiquity; the majority of the houses mean, and only a few good.” He adds that “a stranger, at the first view, might doubt if this is Athens; but after a short time he would find that it was.” (Dicaearch. Βίος τῆς Ἑλλάδος, init., p. 140, ed. Fuhr.) The streets were narrow and crooked; and the meanness of the private houses formed a striking contrast to the magnificence of the public buildings. None of the houses were more than one story high, and the upper stories often projected over the streets. Themistocles and Aristeides, though authorised by the Areiopagus, could hardly prevent people from building over the streets. The houses were, for the most part, constructed either of a frame-work of wood, or of unburnt bricks dried in the open air. (Xen. Mem. 3.1. 7; Plut. Dem. 11; Hirt, Baukunst der Alten. p. 143.) The front towards the street rarely had any windows, and was usually nothing but a curtain wall, covered with a coating of plaster (κονίαμα: Dem. de Ord. Rep. p. 175; Plut. Comp. Arist. et Cat. 4); though occasionally this outer wall was relieved by some ornament, as in the case of Phocion's house, of which the front was adorned with copper filings. (Plut. Phoc. 18; Becker, Charikles, vol. i. p. 198.) What Horace said of the primitive worthies of his own country, will apply with still greater justice to the Athenians during their most flourishing period:--“Privatus illis census erat brevis, Commune magnum.”

(Mure, vol. ii. p. 98). It was not till the Macedonian period, when public spirit had decayed, that the Athenians, no longer satisfied with participating in the grandeur of the state, began to erect handsome private houses. “Formerly,” says Demosthenes, “the republic had abundant wealth, but no individual raised himself above the multitude. If any one of us could now see the houses of Themistocles, Aristeides, Cimon, or the famous men of those days, he would perceive that they were not more magnificent than the houses of ordinary persons; while the buildings of the state are of such number and magnitude that they cannot be surpassed;” and afterwards he complains that the statesmen of his time constructed houses, which exceeded the public buildings in magnitude. (Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 689, Olynth. iii. pp. 35, 36; Böckh, Publ. Econ. of Athens, p. 64, seq., 2nd ed.; Becker, Charikles, vol.i. p. 188.)

The insignificance of the Athenian houses is shown by the small prices. which they fetched. Böckh (Ibid. p. 66) has collected numerous instances from the orators. Their prices vary from the low sum of 3 or 5 minas (12l. 3s. 9d. and 20l. 6s. 3d.) to 120 minas (487l. 10s.); and 50 minas (203l. 2s. 6d.) seem to have been regarded as a considerable sum for the purchase of a house.

Athens was inferior to Rome in the pavement of its streets, its sewers, and its supply of water. “The Greeks,” says Strabo (v. p.235), “in building their cities, attended chiefly to beauty and fortification, harbours, and a fertile soil. The Romans, on the other hand, provided, what the others neglected, the pavement of the streets, a supply of water, and common sewers.” This account must be taken with some modifications, as we are not to suppose that Athens was totally unprovided with these public conveniences. It would appear, however, that few of the streets were paved; and the scavengers did not keep them clean, even in dry weather. The city was not lighted (Becker, Charikles, vol. ii. p. 211); and in the Wasps of Aristophanes we have an amusing picture of a party at night picking their way through the mud, by the aid, of a lantern (Vesp. 248); and during a period of dry weather, as further appears from their own remarks. It would seem, from several passages in Aristophanes, that Athens was as dirty as the filthiest towns of southern Europe in the present day; and that her places of public resort, the purlieus of her sacred edifices more especially, were among the chief repositories of every kind of nuisance. (Aristoph. Pl. 1183, seq., Nub. 1384, seq., Eccles. 320, seq., Vesp. 394; from Mure, vol. ii. p. 46.)

We have not much information respecting the supply of water at Athens. Dicaearchus, as we have already seen, says that the city was deficient in this first necessary of life. There was only one source of good drinking water, namely, the celebrated fountain, called Callirhoë or Enneacrunus, of which we shall speak below. Those who lived at a distance from this fountain obtained their drinking water from wells, of which there was a considerable number at Athens. (Paus. 1.14.1.) There were other fountains in Athens, and Pausanias mentions two, both issuing from the hill of the Acropolis, one in the cavern sacred to Apollo and Pan, and another in the temple of Aesculapius; but they both probably belonged to those springs of water unfit for drinking, but suited to domestic purposes, to which Vitruvius (8.3) alludes. The water obtained from the soil of Athens itself is impregnated with saline particles. It is, however, very improbable that so populous a city as Athens was limited for its supply of drinkable water to the single fountain of Callirhoe. We still find traces in the city of water-courses (ὑδρορρόαι) channelled in the rock, and they are mentioned by the Attic writers. (Aristoph. Ach. 922, &c.) Even as early as the time of Themistocles there were public officers, who had the superintendence of the supply of water (ἐπισταταὶ τῶν ὑδάτων, Plut. Them. 31). It may reasonably be concluded that the city obtained a supply of water by conduits from distant sources. Leake observes, “Modern Athens was not many years ago, and possibly may still be, supplied from two reservoirs, situated near the junction of the Eridanus and Ilissus. Of these reservoirs one was the receptacle of a subterraneous conduit from the foot of Mt. Hymettus; the other, of one of the Cephissus at the foot of Mt. Pentelicum. This conduit, which may be traced to the north of Ambelópiko, in proceeding from thence by Kato Marúsi to Kifisía, where a series of holes give air to a canal, which is deep in the ground, may possibly be a work of republican times. One of these in particular is seen about midway between Athens and Kijfsía, and where two branches of the aqueduct seem to have united, after having conducted water from two or more fountains in the streams which, flowing from Parnes, Pentelicum, and the intermediate ridge, form the Cephissus.” Among the other favours which Hadrian conferred upon Athens was the construction of an aqueduct, of which the whole city probably reaped the benefit, though nominally intended only for the quarter called after his [p. 1.265]own name. There stood in the time of Stuart, at the foot of the south-eastern extremity of Mt. Lycabettus, the remains of an arch, which was part of the frontispiece of a reservoir of this aqueduct. The piers of some of the arches of this aqueduct are still extant, particularly to the eastward of the village of Dervísh-agú, five or six miles to the north of Athens. (Leake, p. 202, and Appendix XIII., “On the Supply of Water at Athens.” )


The Acropolis, as we have already remarked, is a square craggy rock, rising abruptly about 150 feet, with a flat summit of about 1,000 feet from east to west, by 500 feet broad from north to south. It is inaccessible on all sides, except the west, where it is ascended by a steep slope. It was at one and the same time the fortress, the sanctuary, and the museum of the city. Although the site of the original city, it had ceased to be inhabited from the time of the Persian wars, and was appropriated to the worship of Athena and the other guardian deities of the city. It was one great sanctuary, and is therefore called by Aristophanes ἄβατον Ἀκρόπολιν, ἱερὸν τέμενος. (Lysistr. 482; comp. Dem. de Fals. Leg. p. 428, ὅλης οὔσης ἱερᾶς τῆς Ἀκροπόλεως.) By the artists of the age of Pericles its platform was covered with the master-pieces of ancient art, to which additions continued to be made in succeeding ages. The sanctuary thus became a museum; and in order to form a proper idea of it, we must imagine the summit of the rock stripped of every thing except temples and statues, the whole forming one vast composition of architecture, sculpture, and painting, the dazzling whiteness of the marble relieved by brilliant colours, and glittering in the transparent clearness of the Athenian atmosphere. It was here that Art achieved her greatest triumphs; and though in the present day a scene of desolation and rain, its ruins are some of the most precious reliques of the ancient world.

The Acropolis stood in the centre of the city. Hence it was the heart of Athens, as Athens was the heart of Greece (Arist. Panath. i. p. 99, Jebb); and Pindar no doubt alluded to it, when he speaks of ἄστεος ὀμφαλὸς θυόεις ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς Ἀθάναις. (Frag. p. 225, Dissen.) It was to this sacred rock


that the magnificent procession of the Panathenaic festival took place once in four years. The chief object of this procession was to carry the Peplus, or embroidered robe, of Athena to her temple on the Acropolis. (Dict. of Ant. art. Panathenaea.) In connection with this subject it is important to distinguish between the three different Athenas of the Acropolis. (Schol. ad Aristid. p. 320, Dindorf.) The first was the Athena Polias, the most ancient of all, made of olive wood, and said to have fallen from heaven; its sanctuary was the Erechtheium. The second was--the Athena of the Parthenon, a statue of ivory and gold, the work of Pheidias. The third was the Athena Promachus, a colossal statue of bronze, also the work of Pheidias, standing erect, with helmet, spear, and shield. Of these three statues we shall speak more fully hereafter; but it must be borne in mind that the Peplus of the Panathenaic procession was carried to the ancient statue of Athena Polias, and not to the Athena of the Parthenon. (Wordsworth, p. 123, seq.)

The three goddesses are alluded to in the following remarkable passages of the Knights (1165, seq.) of Aristophanes, which we subjoin, with Wordsworth's comments:--

ΚΛ. ἰδοὺ φέρω σοι τήνδε μαζίσκην ἐγώ.

ΑΛΛ. ἐγὼ δὲ μυστίλας μεμυστιλημένας ὑπὸ τῆς θεοῦ τῇ χειρὶ τῇ ἐλεφαντίνῃ.1

ΔΗ. ὡς μέγαν ἄῤ εἶχες, πότνια, τὸν δάκτυλον.

ΚΛ. ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἔτνος γε πίσινον εὔχρων καὶ καλόν. ἐτόρυνε δ᾽ αὔθ̓ Παλλὰς Πυλαιμάχος.2

ΑΛΛ. Δῆμ̓ ἐναργῶς Η Θεός σ᾽ ἑπισκοπεῖ, καὶ νῦν ὑπερέχει σου χύτραν ζωμοῦ πλέαν.

ΚΛ. τουτὶ τέμαχος σοὔδωκεν Φοβεσιοτράτη.

ΑΛΛ. δ᾽ ὀβριμοπάτρα γ᾽ ἑφθὸν ἐκ ζωμοῦ κρέας καὶ χόλικος ἠνύστρου τε καὶ γαστρός τόμον.

ΔΗ. καλῶς γ᾽ ἐποίησε τοῦ πέπλου μεμνημένη.3 [p. 1.266]

1. Walls of the Acropolis.

Being a citadel, the Acropolis was fortified. The ancient fortifications are ascribed to the Pelasgians, who are said to have levelled the summit of the rock, and to have built a wall around it, called the Pelasgic Wall or Fortress. Πελασγικὸν τεῖχος, Hdt. 5.64; τείχισμα Πελαργικὸν, Callimach. ap. Schol. ad Aristoph. Av. 832; Hecataeus, ap. Herod. 6.137; Myrsilus, ap. Dionys. 1.28; Cleidemus, ap. Suid. s. vv. ἀπέδα, ἠπέδιζον.) The approach on the western side was protected by a system of works, comprehending nine gates, hence called ἐννεάπυλον τὸ Πελασγικόν. (Cleidem. l.c.) These fortifications were sufficiently strong to defy the Spartans, when the Peisistratidae took refuge in the Acropolis (Hdt. 5.64, 65); but after the expulsion of the family of the despot, it is not improbable that they were partly dismantled, to prevent any attempt to restore the former state of things, since the seizure of the citadel was always the first step towards the establishment of despotism in a Greek state. When Xerxes attacked the Acropolis, its chief fortifications consisted of palisades and other works constructed of wood. The Persians took up their position on the Areiopagus, which was opposite the western side of the Acropolis, just as the Amazons had done when they attacked the city of Cecrops. (Aesch. Eum. 685, seq.) From the Areiopagus the Persians discharged hot missiles against the wooden defences, which soon took fire and were consumed, thus leaving the road on the western side open to the enemy. The garrison kept them at bay by rolling down large stones, as they attempted to ascend the road; and the Persians only obtained possession of the citadel by scaling the precipitous rock on the northern side, close by the temple of Aglaurus. (Hdt. 8.52, 53.) It would seem to follow from this narrative that the elaborate system of works, with its nine gates on the western side, could not have been in existence at this time. After the capture of the Acropolis, the Persians set fire to all the buildings upon it; and when they visited Athens in the following year, they destroyed whatever remained of the walls, or houses, or temples of Athens. (Hdt. 8.53, 9.93.)

The foundations of the ancient walls no doubt remained, and the name of Pelasgic continued to be applied to a part of the fortifications down to the latest times. Aristophanes (Aristoph. Birds 832) speaks of τῆς πόλεως τὸ Πελαργικόν, which the Scholiast explains as the “Pelargic wall on the Acropolis;” and Pausanias (1.28.3) says that the Acropolis was surrounded by the Pelasgians with walls, except on the side fortified by Cimon. We have seen, however, from other authorities that the Pelasgians fortified the whole hill; and the remark of Pausanias probably only means that in his time the northern wall was called the Pelasgic, and the southern the Cimonian. (Comp. Plut. Cim. 13.) When the Athenians returned to their city after its occupation by the Persians, they commenced the restoration of the walls of the Acropolis, as well as of those of the Asty; and there can be little doubt that the northern wall had been rebuilt, when Cimon completed the southern wall twelve years after the retreat of the Persians. The restoration of the northern wall may be ascribed to Themistocles; for though called apparently the Pelasgic wall, its remains show that the greater part of it was of more recent origin. In the middle of it we find courses of masonry, formed of pieces of Doric columns and entablature; and as we know from. Thucydides (1.93) that the ruins of former buildings were much employed in rebuilding the walls of the Asty, we may conclude that the same was the case in rebuilding those of the Acropolis.

The Pelasgicum signified not only a portion of the walls of the Acropolis, but also a space of ground below the latter (τὸ Πελασγικὸν καλούμενον τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν Ἀκρόπολιν, Thuc. 2.17.) That it was not a wall is evident from the account of Thucydides, who says that an oracle had enjoined that it should remain uninhabited; but that it was, notwithstanding this prohibition, built upon, in consequence of the number of people who flocked into Athens at the commencement of the Peloponnesian war. Lucian (Piscator. 47) represents a person sitting upon the wall of the Acropolis, and letting down his hook to angle for philosophers in the Pelasgicum. This spot is said to have been originally inhabited by the Pelasgians, who fortified the Acropolis, and from which they were expelled because they plotted against the Athenians. (Schol. ad Thuc. 2.17; Philochorus, ap. Schol. ad Lucian. Catapl. 1; Paus. 1.28.3.) It is placed by Leake and most other authorities at the north-western angle of the Acropolis. A recent traveller remarks that “the story of the Pelasgic settlement under the north side of the Acropolis inevitably rises before us, when we see the black shade always falling upon it, as over an accursed spot, in contrast with the bright gleam of sunshine which always seems to invest the Acropolis itself; and we can imagine how naturally the gloom of the steep precipice would conspire with the remembrance of an accursed and hateful race, to make the Athenians dread the spot.” (Stanley, Class. Mus. vol. i. p. 53.)

The rocks along the northern side of the Acropolis were called the Long Rocks (Μακραί), a name under which they are frequently mentioned in the Ion of Euripides, in connection with the grotto of Pan, and the sanctuary of Aglaurus: ἔνθα προσβόρρους τέτρας Παλλάδος ὑπ᾽ ὂχθῳ τῆς Ἀθηναίων χθονὸς Μακρὰς καλοῦσι γῆς ἄνακτες Ἀτθίδος.

Eur. Ion 11, seq.; comp. 296, 506, 953, 1413.) This name is explained by the fact that the length of the Acropolis is much greater than its width; but it might have been given with equal propriety to the rocks on the southern side. The reason why the southern rocks had not the same name appears to have been, that the rocks on the northern side could be seen from the greater part of the Athenian plain, and from almost all the demi of Mt. Parnes; while those on the southern side were only visible from the small and more undulating district between Hymettus, the Long Walls, and the sea. In the city itself the rocks of the Acropolis were for the most part concealed from view by houses and public buildings. (Forchhammer, p. 364, seq.)

The surface of the Acropolis appears to have been divided into platforms, communicating with one another by steps. Upon these platforms stood the temples, sanctuaries, or monuments, which occupied all the summit. Before proceeding to describe the monuments of the Acropolis, it will be adviseable to give a description of the present condition of the walls, and of the recent excavations on the platform of the rock, for which we are indebted to Mr. Penrose's important work. (An Investigation of the Principles of Athenian Architecture, by F. C. Penrose; London, 1851.) [p. 1.267]

  • AA. Southern or Cimonian Wall.
  • BB. Northern or Pelasgic Wall.
  • 1. Parthenon.
  • 2. Erechtheium.
  • 3. Propylaea.
  • 4. Temple of Nike Apteros: beneath Temple of Ge Curotrophus and Demeter Chloe.
  • 5. Pedestal of the Statue of Agrippa.
  • 6. Quadriga.
  • 7. Statue of Athena Promachus.
  • 8. Gigantomachia.
  • 9. Temple of Rome and Augustus.
  • 10. Temple of Artemis Brauronia.
  • 11. Odeium of Herodes or Regilla.
  • 12. Dionysiac Theatre.
  • 13. Odeium of Pericles.
  • 14. Stoa Eumeneia.
  • 15. Grave of Talus or Calus.
  • 16. Eleusinium.
  • 17. Aglaurium.
  • 18. Grotto of Pan.
  • 19 Pelasgicum.
  • 20. Asclepieium.
  • 21. Temple of Aphrodite Pandemus.
  • 22. Temple of Themis.
  • 23. Grave of Hippolytus.
  • 24. Statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton.
  • 25. Altar of the Twelve Gods.

On the ascent to the Acropolis from the modern town our first attention is called to the angle of the Hellenic wall, west of the northern wing of the Propylaea. It is probable that this wall formed the exterior defence of the Acropolis at this point. Following this wall northwards, we come to a bastion, built about the year 1822 by the Greek general Odysseus to defend an ancient well, to which there is access within the bastion by an antique passage and stairs of some length cut in the rock. Turning eastwards round the corner, we come to two caves, one of which is supposed to have been dedicated to Pan; in these caves are traces of tablets let into the rock. Leaving these caves we come to a large buttress, after which the wall runs upon the edge of the nearly vertical rock. On passing round a salient angle, where is a small buttress, we find a nearly straight line of wall for about 210 feet; then a short bend to the south-east; afterwards a further straight reach for about 120 feet, nearly parallel to the former. These two lines of wall contain the remains of Doric columns and entablature, to which reference has already been made. A mediaeval buttress about 100 feet from the angle of the Erechtheium forms the termination of this second reach of wall. From hence to the north-east angle of the Acropolis, where there is a tower apparently Turkish, occur several large square stones, which also appear to have belonged to some early temple. The wall, into which these, as well as the before mentioned fragments, are built, seems to be of Hellenic origin. The eastern face of the wall appears to have been entirely built in the Middle Ages on the old foundations. At the south-east angle we find the Hellenic masonry of the Southern or Cimonian wall. At this spot 29 courses remain, making a height of 45 feet. Westward of this point the wall has been almost entirely cased in mediaeval and recent times, and is further supported by 9 buttresses, which, as well as those on the north and east sides, appear to be mediaeval. But the Hellenic masonry of the Cimonian wall can be traced all along as far as the Propylaea under the casing. The south-west reach of the Hellenic wall terminates westwards in a solid tower about 30 feet high, which is surmounted by the temple of Nike Apteros, described below. This tower commanded the unshielded side of any troops approaching the gate, which, there is good reason to believe, was in the same position as the present entrance. After passing through the gate and proceeding northwards underneath the west face of the tower, we come to the Propylaea. The effect of emerging from the dark gate and narrow passage to the magnificent marble staircase, 70 feet broad, surmounted by the Propylaea, must have been exceedingly grand. A small portion of the ancient Pelasgic wall still remains near the south-east angle of the southern wing of the Propylaea, now occupied by a lofty mediaeval tower. After passing the gateways of the Propylaea we come upon the area of the Acropolis, of which considerably more than half has been excavated under the auspices of the Greek government. Upon entering the enclosure of the Acropolis the colossal statue of Athena Promachus was seen a little to the left, and the Parthenon to the right; both offering angular views, according to the usual custom of the Greeks in arranging the approaches to their public buildings. The road leading upwards in the direction of the Parthenon is slightly worked out of the rock; it is at first of considerable breadth, and afterwards becomes narrower. On the right hand, as we leave the Propylaea, and on the road itself, are traces of 5 votive altars, one of which is dedicated to Athena Hygieia. Further en, to the left of the road, is the [p. 1.268]site of the statue of Athena Promachus. Northwards of this statue, we come to a staircase close to the edge of the rock, partly built, partly cut out, leading to the grotto of Aglaurus. This staircase passes downwards through a deep cleft in the rock, nearly parallel in its direction to the outer wall, and opening out in the face of the cliff a little below its foundation. In the year 1845 it was possible to creep into this passage, and ascend into the Acropolis; but since that time the entrance has been closed up. Close to the Parthenon the original soil was formed of made ground in three layers of chips of stone; the lowest being of the rock of the Acropolis, the next of Pentelic marble, and the uppermost of Peiriäic stone. In the extensive excavation made to the east of the Parthenon there was found a number of drums of columns, in a more or less perfect state, some much shattered, others apparently rough from the quarry, others partly worked and discarded in consequence of some defect in the material. The ground about them was strewed with marble chips; and some sculptors' tools, and jars containing red colour were found with them. In front of the eastern portico of the Parthenon we find considerable remains of a level platform, partly of smoothed rock, and partly of Peiräic paving. North of this platform is the highest part of the Acropolis. Westwards of this spot we arrive at the area between the Parthenon and Erechtheium, which slopes from the former to the latter. Near the Parthenon is a small well, or rather mouth of a cistern, excavated in the rock, which may have been supplied with water from the roof of the temple. Close to the south, or Caryatid portico of the Erechtheium, is a small levelled area on which was probably placed one of the many altars or statues surrounding that temple.

Before quitting the general plan of the Acropolis, Mr. Penrose calls attention to the remarkable absence of parallelism among the several buildings. “Except the Propylaea and Parthenon, which were perhaps intended to bear a definite relation to one another, no two are parallel. This asymmetria is productive of very great beauty; for it not only obviates the dry uniformity of too many parallel lines, but also produces exquisite varieties of light and shade. One of the most happy instances of this latter effect is in the temple of Nike Apteros, in front of the southern wing of the Propylaea. The facade of this temple and pedestal of Agrippa, which is opposite to it, remain in shade for a considerable time after the front of the Propylaea has been lighted up; and they gradually receive every variety of light, until the sun is sufficiently on the decline to shine nearly equally on all the western faces of the entire group.” Mr. Penrose observes that a similar want of parallelism in the separate parts is found to obtain in several of the finest mediaeval structures, and may conduce in some degree to the beauty of the magnificent Piazza of St. Marc at Venice.

2. The Propylaea.

The road up the western slope of the Acropolis led from the agora, and was paved with slabs of Pentelic marble. (Ross, in the Kunstblatt, 1836, No. 60.) At the summit of the rock Pericles caused a magnificent building to be constructed, which might serve as a suitable entrance (Προπύλαια) to the wonderful works of architecture and sculpture within:--

ὄψεσθε δέ: καὶ γὰρ ἀνοιγνυμένων ψόφος ἤδη τῶν Προπυλαίων.

ἀλλ᾽ ὀλολύξατε φαινομέναισιν ταῖς ἀρχαιαῖσιν Ἀθήναις,

καὶ θαυμασταῖς καὶ πολυΰμνοις, ἵν᾽ κλεῖνος Δῆμος ἐνοικεῖ.

Aristoph. Kn. 1326.)

The Propylaea were considered one of the masterpieces of Athenian art, and are mentioned along with the Parthenon as the great architectural glory of the Periclean age. (Dem. c. Androt. p. 597, Reiske; Philostr. Vit. Apoll. 2.5.) When Epaminondas was urging the Thebans to rival the glory of Athens, he told them that they must uproot the Propylaea of the Athenian Acropolis, and plant them in front of the Cadmean citadel. (Aesch. de Fals. Leg. p. 279, Reiske.)

  • A. Pinacotheca.
  • B. Temple of Nike Apteros.
  • C. Pedestal of Agrippa.

The architect of the Propylaea was Mnesicles. It was commenced in the archonship of Euthymenes, B.C. 437, and was completed in the short space of five years. (Plut. Per. 13.) It cost 2000 talents (Harpocrat. s. v. Προπύλαια), or 460,000l. The building was constructed entirely of Pentelic marble, and covered the whole of the western end of the Acropolis, which was 168 feet in breadth. The central part of the building consisted of two Doric hexastyle porticoes, covered with a roof of white marble, which attracted the particular notice of Pausanias (1.22.4). Of these porticoes the western faced the city, and the eastern the interior of the Acropolis; the latter, owing to the rise of the ground, being higher than the former. They were divided into two unequal halves by a wall, pierced by five gates or doors, by which the Acropolis was entered. The western portico was 43 feet in depth, and the eastern about half this depth; and they were [p. 1.269]called Propylaea from their forming a vestibule to the five gates or doors just mentioned. Each portico or vestibule consisted of a front of six fluted Doric columns, supporting a pediment, the columns being 4 1/2 feet in diameter, and nearly 29 feet in height. Of the five gates the one in the centre was the largest, and was equal in breadth to the space between the two central columns in the portico in front. It was by this gate that the carriages and horsemen entered the Acropolis, and the marks of the chariotwheels worn in the rock are still visible. The doors on either side of the central one were much smaller both in height and breadth, and designed for the admission of foot passengers only. The roof of the western portico was supported by two rows of three Ionic columns each, between which was the road to the central gate.

The central part of the building which we have been describing, was 58 feet in breadth, and consequently did not cover the whole width of the rock: the remainder was occupied by two wings, which projected 26 feet in front of the western portico. Each of these wings was built in the form of Doric temples, and communicated with the adjoining angle of the great portico. In the northern wing (on the left hand to a person ascending the Acropolis) a porch of 12 feet in depth conducted into a chamber of 35 feet by 30, usually called the Pinacotheca, from its walls being covered with paintings (οἴκημα ἔχον γραφάς, Paus. 1.22.6). The southern wing (on the right hand to a person ascending the Acropolis) consisted only of a porch or open gallery of 26 feet by 17, which did not conduct into any chamber behind. On the western front of this southern wing stood the small temple of Nike Apteros (Νίκη Ἄπτερος), the Wingless Victory. (Paus. 1.22.4.) The spot occupied by this temple commands a wide prospect of the sea, and it was here that Aegeus is said to have watched his son's return from Crete. (Paus. l.c.) From this part of the rock he threw himself, when he saw the black sail on the mast of Theseus. Later writers, in order to account for the name of the Aegaean sea, relate that Aegeus threw himself from the Acropolis into the sea, which is three miles off.

There are still considerable remains of the Propylaea. The eastern portico, together with the adjacent parts, was thrown down about 1656 by an explosion of gunpowder which had been deposited in that place; but the inner wall, with its five gateways, still exists. The northern wing is tolerably perfect; but the southern is almost entirely destroyed: two columns of the latter are seen imbedded in the adjacent walls of the mediaeval tower.

  • A. Pinacotheca.
  • B. Temple of Nike Apteros.
  • C. Pedestal of Agrippa.
  • D. Road leading to the central entrance.
  • E. Central entrance.
  • F. Hall corresponding to the Pinacotheca.

The Temple of Nike Apteros

requires a few words. In the time of Pericles, Nike or Victory was figured as a young female with golden wings (Νίκη πέτεται πτερύγοιν χρυσαῖν, Aristoph. Birds 574); but the more ancient statues of the goddess are said to have been without wings. (Schol. ad Aristoph. l.c.) Nike Apteros was identified with Athena, and was called Nike Athena. (Νίκη Ἀθηνᾶ, Heliodor. ap. Harpocrat. Suid. s. v.) Standing as she did at the exit from the Acropolis, her aid was naturally implored by persons starting on a dangerous enterprise. (Νίκη τ᾽ Ἀθάνα Πολιὰς, σώζει μ᾽ ἀεί, Soph. Philoct. 134.) Hence, the opponents of Lysistrata, upon reaching the top of the ascent to the Acropolis, invoke Nike (δέσποινα Νίκη ξυγγενοῦ), before whose temple they were standing. (Aristoph. Lys. 318; from Wordsworth, p. 107, seq.) This temple was still in existence when Spon and Wheler visited Athens in 1676; but in 1751 nothing remained of it but some traces of the foundation and fragments of masonry lying in the neighbourhood of its former site. There were also found in a neighbouring wall four slabs of its sculptured frieze, which are now in the British Museum. It seemed that this temple had perished utterly; but the stones of which it was built were discovered in the excavations of the year 1835, and it has been rebuilt with the original materials under the auspices of Ross and Schaubert. The greater part of its frieze was also discovered at the same time. The temple now stands on its original site, and at a distance looks very much like a new building, with its white marble columns and walls glittering in the sun.

This temple is of the class called Amphiprostylus Tetrastylus, consisting of a cella with four Ionic columns at either front, but with none on [p. 1.270]the sides. It is raised upon a stylobate of 3 feet, and is 27 feet in length from east to west, and 18 feet in breadth. The columns, including the base and the capital, are 13 1/2 feet high, and the total height of the temple to the apex of the pediment, including the stylobate, is 23 feet. The frieze, which runs round the whole of the exterior of the building, is 1 foot 6 inches high, and is adorned with sculptures in high relief. It originally consisted of fourteen pieces of stone, of which twelve, or the fragments of twelve, now remain. Several of these are so mutilated that it is difficult to make out the subject; but some of them evidently represent a battle between Greeks and Persians, or other Oriental barbarians. It is supposed that the two long sides were occupied with combats of horsemen, and that the western end represented a battle of foot soldiers. This building must have been erected after the battle of Salamis, since it could not have escaped the Persians, when they destroyed every thing upon the Acropolis; and the style of art shows that it could not have been later than the age of Pericles. But, as it is never mentioned among the buildings of this statesman, it is generally ascribed to Cimon, who probably built it at the same time as the southern wall of the Acropolis. Its sculptures were probably intended to commemorate the recent victories of the Greeks over the Persians. (Die Akropolis von Athen: 1 Abth. Der Tempel der Nike Apteros, von Ross, Schaubert und Hansen, Berl. 1839; Leake, p. 529, seq.)

Pedestal of Agrippa.

On the western front of the northern wing of the Propylaea there stands at present a lofty pedestal, about 12 feet square and 27 high, which supported some figure or figures, as is clear from the holes for stanchions on its summit. Moreover we may conclude from the size of the pedestal that the figure or figures on its summit were colossal or equestrian. Pausanias, in describing the Propylaea, speaks of the statues of certain horsemen, respecting which he was in doubt whether they were the sons of Xenophon, or made for the sake of ornament


(ἐς εὐπρέπειαν); and as in the next clause he proceeds to speak of the temple of Nike on the right hand (or southern wing) of the Propylaea, we may conclude that these statues stood in front of the northern wing. (Paus. 1.22.4.) Now, it has been well observed by Leake, that the doubt of Pausanias, as to the persons for whom the equestrian statues were intended, could not have been sincere; and that, judging from his manner on other similar occasions, we may conclude that equestrian statues of Gryllus and Diodorus, the two sons of Xenophon, had been converted, by means of new inscriptions, into those of two Romans, whom Pausanias has not named. This conjecture is confirmed by an inscription on the base, which records the name of M. Agrippa in his third consulship; and it may be that the other Roman was Augustus himself, who was the colleague of Agrippa in his third consulship. It appears that both statues stood on the same pedestal, and accordingly they are so represented in the accompanying restoration of the Propylaea.

3. The Parthenon.

The Parthenon (Παρθενών, i. e. the Virgin‘s House) was the great glory of the Acropolis, and the most perfect production of Grecian architecture. It derived its name from its being the temple of Athena Parthenos (Ἀθηνᾶ Πάρθενος), or Athena the Virgin, a name given to her as the invincible goddess of war. It was also called Hecatompedos or Hecatompedon, the Temple of One Hundred Feet, from its breadth (Ἑκατόμπεδος, sc. νεὼς, Ἑκατόμπεδον, Etym. M. p. 321, 21; Harpocrat. Suid. s. v.); and sometimes Parthenon Hecatompedos. (Plut. Per. 13, de Glor. Athen. 7.) It was built under the administration of Pericles, and was completed in B.C. 438. (Philochor. ap. Schol. ad Aristoph. Pac. 604.) We do not know when it was commenced; but notwithstanding the rapidity with which all the works of Pericles were executed (Plut. l.c.), its erection could not have occupied less than eight years, since the Propylaea occupied five. The architects, according to Plutarch (l.c.), were Callicrates and Ictinus: other writers generallymention Ictinus alone. (Strab. ix. p.396; Paus. 8.41.9.) Ictinus wrote a work upon the temple. (Vitruv. vii. Praef.) The general superintendence of the erection of the whole building was entrusted to Pheidias.

The Parthenon was probably built on the site of an earlier temple destroyed by the Persians. This is expressly asserted by an ancient grammarian, who [p. 1.271]states that the Parthenon was 50 feet greater than the temple burnt by the Persians (Hesych. sub voce Ἑκατόμπεδος), a measure which must have reference to the breadth of the temple, and not to its length. The only reason for questioning this statement is the silence of the ancient writers respecting an earlier Parthenon, and the statement of Herodotus (7.53) that the Persians set fire to the Acropolis, after plundering the temple (τὸ ἱρὸν), as if there had been only one; which, in that case, must have been the Erechtheium, or temple of Athena Polias. But, on the other hand, we find under the stylobate of the present Parthenon the foundations of another and much older building (Penrose, p. 73); and to this more ancient temple probably belonged the portions of the columns inserted in the northern wall of the Acropolis, of which we have already spoken.

The Parthenon stood on the highest part of the Acropolis. Its architecture was of the Doric order, and of the purest kind. It was built entirely of Pentelic marble, and rested upon a rustic basement of ordinary limestone. The contrast between the limestone of the basement and the splendid marble of the superstructure enhanced the beauty of the latter. Upon the basement stood the stylobate or platform, built of Pentelic marble, five feet and a half in height, and composed of three steps. The temple was raised so high above the entrance to the Acropolis, both by its site and by these artificial means, that the pavement of the peristyle was nearly on a level with the summit of the Propylaea. The dimensions of the Parthenon, taken from the upper step of the stylobate, were about 228 feet in length, 101 feet in breadth, and 66 feet in height to the top of the pediment. It consisted of a σηκός or cella, surrounded by a peristyle, which had eight columns at either front, and seventeen at either side (reckoning the corner columns twice), thus containing forty-six columns in all. These columns were 6 feet 2 inches in diameter at the base, and 34 feet in height. Within the peristyle at either end, there was an interior range of six columns, of 5 1/2 feet in diameter, standing before the end of the cella, and forming, with the prolonged walls of the cella, an apartment before the door. These interior columns were on a level with the floor of the cella, and were ascended by two steps from the peristyle. The cella was divided into two chambers of unequal


size, of which the Eastern chamber or naos was about 98 feet, and the Western chamber or opisthodomus about 43 feet.4 The ceiling of both these chambers was supported by inner rows of columns. In the eastern chamber there were twenty-three columns, of the Doric order, in two stories, one over the other, ten on each side, and three on the western return: the diameter of these columns was about three feet and a half at the base. In the western chamber there were four columns, the position of which is marked by four large slabs, symmetrically placed in the pavement. These columns were about four feet in diameter, and were probably of the Ionic order, as in the Propylaea. Technically the temple is called Peripteral Octastyle.

“ Such was the simple structure of this magnificent building, which, by its united excellencies of materials, design, and decorations, was the most perfect ever executed. Its dimensions of 228 feet by 101, with a height of 66 feet to the top of the pediment, were sufficiently great to give a appear. ance of grandeur and sublimity; and this impression was not disturbed by any obtrusive subdivision of parts, such as is found to diminish the effect of many larger modern buildings, where the same singleness of design is not apparent. In the Parthenon there was nothing to divert the spectator's contemplation from the simplicity and majesty of mass and outline, which forms the first and most remarkable object of admiration in a Greek temple; for the statues of the pediments, the only decoration [p. 1.272]which was very conspicuous by its magnitude and position, having been inclosed within frames which formed an essential part of the designs of either front, had no more obtrusive effect than an ornamented capital to an unadorned column.” (Leake, p. 334.) The whole building was adorned within and without with the most exquisite pieces of sculpture, executed under the direction of Pheidias by different artists. The various architectural members of the upper part of the building were enriched with positive colours, of which traces are still found. The statues and the reliefs, as well as the members of architecture, were enriched with various colours; and the weapons, the reins of horses, and other accessories, were of metal, and the eyes of some of the figures were inlaid.

Of the sculptures of the Parthenon the grandest and most celebrated was the colossal statue of the Virgin Goddess, executed by the hand of Pheidias himself. It stood in the eastern or principal apartment of the cella; and as to its exact position some remarks are made below. It belonged to that kind of work which the Greeks called chryselephantine; ivory being employed for those parts of the statue which were unclothed, while the dress and other ornaments were of solid gold. This statue represented the goddess standing, clothed with a tunic reaching to the ankles, with her spear in her left hand, and an image of victory, four cubits high, in her right. She was girded with the aegis, and had a helmet on her head, and her shield rested on the ground by her side. The height of the statue was twenty-six cubits, or nearly forty feet. The weight of the gold upon the statue, which was so affixed as to be removable at pleasure, is said by Thucydides (2.13) to have been 40 talents, by Philochorus 44, and by other writers 50: probably the statement of Philochorus is correct, the others being round numbers. (Wesseling, ad Diod. 12.40.) It was finally robbed of its gold by Lachares, who made himself tyrant of Athens, when Demetrius was besieging the city. (Paus. 1.25.5.) A fuller account of this masterpiece of art is given in the Dictionary of Biography. [Vol. iii. p. 250.]

The sculptures on the outside of the Parthenon have been described so frequently that it is unnecessary to speak of them at any length on the present occasion. These various pieces of sculpture were all closely connected in subject, and were intended to commemorate the history and the honours of the goddess of the temple, as the tutelary deity of Athens. 1. The Tympana of the Pediments (i. e. the inner flat portion of the triangular gable-ends of the roof above the two porticoes) were filled with two compositions in sculpture, each nearly 80 feet in length, and consisting of about 24 colossal statues. The eastern or principal front represented the birth of Athena from the head of Zeus, and the western the contest between Athena and Poseidon for the land of Attica. The mode in which the legend is represented, and the identification of the figures, have been variously explained by archaeologists, to whose works upon the subject a reference is given below. 2. The Metopes, between the Triglyphs in the frieze of the entablature (i. e. the upper of the two portions into which the surface between the columns and the roof is divided), were filled with sculptures in high-relief. Each tablet was 4 feet 3 inches square. There were 92 in all, 14 on each front, and 32 on each side. They represented a variety of subjects relating to the exploits of the goddess herself, or to those of the indigenous heroes of Attica. Those on the south side related to the battle of the Athenians with the Centaurs: of these the British Museum possesses sixteen. 3. The Frieze, which ran along outside the wall of the cella, and within the external columns which surround the building, was sculptured with a representation of the Panathenaic festival in very low relief. Being under the ceiling of the peristyle, the frieze could not receive any direct light from the rays of the sun, and was entirely lighted from below by the reflected light from the pavement; consequently it was necessary for it to be in low relief, for any bold projection of form would have interfered with the other parts. The frieze was 3 feet 4 inches in height, and 520 feet in length. A large number of the slabs of this frieze was brought to England by Lord Elgin, with the sixteen metopes just mentioned, and several of the statues of the pediments: the whole collection was purchased by the nation in 1816, and deposited in the British Museum. (On the sculptures of the Parthenon, see Visconti, Mém. sur les Ouvrages de Sculpture du Parthenon, Lond. 1816; Wilkins, On the Sculptures of the Parthenon, in Walpole's Travels in the East, p. 409, seq.; K. O. Müller, Commentatio de Parthenonis Fastigio, in Comm. Soc. Reg. Gott. rec. vi. Cl. Hist. p. 191, foll., and Ueber die erhobenen Bildwerke in den Metopen und am Friese des Parthenon, in Kleine Schriften, vol. ii. p. 547, seq.; Leake, Topography of Athens, p. 536, seq.; Welcker, On the Sculptured Groups in the Pediments of the Parthenon, in the Classical Museum, vol. ii. p. 367, &c., also in German, Alte Denkmäler, erklärt von Welcker, vol. i. p. 67, seq.; Watkiss Lloyd, Explanation of the Groups in the Western Pediment of the Parthenon, in Classical Museum, vol. v. p. 396, seq., in opposition to the previous essay of Welcker, who defended his views in another essay in the Classical Museum, vol. vi. p. 279, seq.; Brönsted, Voyages et Recherches en Grèce, Paris, 1830.

Among the many other ornaments of the temple we may mention the gilded shields, which were placed upon the architraves of the two fronts beneath the metopes. Between the shields there were inscribed the names of the dedicators. The impressions left by these covered shields are still visible upon the architraves; the shields themselves were carried off by Lachares, together with the gold of the statue of the goddess. (Paus. 1.25.5.) The inner walls of the cella were decorated with paintings; those of the Pronaos, or Prodoms, were partly painted by Protogenes of Caunus (Plin. Nat. 35.10. s. 36. § 20); and in the Hecatompedon there were paintings representing The-mistocles and Heliodorus. (Paus. 1.1.2, 37.1.)

We have already seen that the temple was some-times called Parthenon, and sometimes Hecatompedon; but we know that these were also names of separate divisions of the temple. There have been found among the ruins in the Acropolis many official records of the treasurers of the Parthenon inscribed upon marble, containing an account of the gold and silver vessels, the coin, bullion, and other valuables preserved in the temple. (Böckh, Corp. Inscr. No. 137--142, 150--154.) From these inscriptions we learn that there were four distinct divisions of the temple, called respectively the Pronaos (Πρόναος, Προνήϊον), the Hecatompedon (Ἑκατόμπεδον), the Parthenon (Παρθενών), and the Opisthodomus (Ὀπισθόδομος).

Respecting the position of the Pronaos there can [p. 1.273]be no doubt, as it was the name always given to the hall or ambulatory through which a person passed to the cella. The Pronaos was also, though rarely, called Prodomus. (Πρόδομος, Philostr. Vit. Apoll. 2.10.) But as to the Opisthodomus there has been great difference of opinion. There seems, however,

  • A. Peristylium.
  • B. Pronaos or Prodomus.
  • C. Opisthodomus or Posticum.
  • D. Hecatompedon.
  • a. Statue of the Goddess.
  • E. Parthenon, afterwards Opisthodomus.

good reason for believing that the Greeks used the word Opisthodomus to signify a corresponding hall in the back-front of a temple; and that as Pronaos, or Prodomus, answered to the Latin anticum, so Opisthodomus was equivalent to the Latin posticum. (Τὸ πρὸ [τοῦ σηκοῦ] πρόδομος, καὶ τὸ κάτοπιν ὀπισθόδομος, Pollux, 1.6; comp. ἐν τοῖς προνάοις καὶ τοῖς ὀπισθοδόμοις, Diod. 14.41.) Lucian (Herod. 1) describes Herodotus as reading his history to the assembled Greeks at Olympia from the Opisthodomus of the temple of Zeus. If we suppose Herodotus to have stood in the hall or ambulatory leading out of the back portico, the description is intelligible, as the great crowd of auditors might then have been assembled in the portico and on the steps below; and we can hardly imagine that Lucian could have conceived the Opisthodomus to be an inner room, as some modern writers maintain. Other passages might be adduced to prove that the Opisthodomus in the Greek temples ordinarily bore the sense we have given to it (comp. Paus. 5.13.1, 16.1); and we believe that the Opisthodomus of the Parthenon originally indicated the same part, though at a later time, as we shall see presently, it was used in a different signification.

The Hecatompedon must have been the eastern or principal chamber of the cella. This follows from its name; for as the whole temple was called Hecatompedon, from its being 100 feet broad, so the eastern chamber was called by the same name from its being 100 feet long (its exact length is 98 feet 7 inches). This was the naos, or proper shrine of the temple; and here accordingly was placed the colossal statue by Pheidias. In the records of the treasures of the temple the Hecatompedon contained a golden crown placed upon the head of the statue of Nike, or Victory, which stood upon the hand of the great statue of Athena, thereby plainly showing that the latter must have been placed in this division of the temple. There has been considerable dispute respecting the disposition of the columns in the interior of this chamber; but the removal of the Turkish Mosque and other incumbrances from the pavement has now put an end to all doubt upon the subject. It has already been stated that there were 10 columns on each side, and 3 on the western return; and that upon them there was an upper row of the same number. These columns were thrown down by the explosion in 1687, but they were still standing when Spon and Wheler visited Athens. Wheler says, “on both sides, and towards the door, is a kind of gallery made with two ranks of pillars, 22 below and 23 above. The odd pillar is over the arch of the entrance which was left for the passage.” The central column of the lower row had evidently been removed in order to effect an entrance from the west, and the “arch of the entrance” had been substituted for it. Wheler says a “kind of gallery,” because it was probably an architrave supporting the rank of columns, and not a gallery. (Penrose, p. 6.) Recent observations have proved that these columns were Doric, and not Corinthian, as some writers had supposed, in consequence of the discovery of the fragment of a capital of that order in this chamber. But it has been conjectured, that although all the other columns were Doric, the central column of the western return, which would have been hidden from the Pronaos by the statue, might have been Corinthian, since the central column of the return of the temple at Bassae seems to have been Corinthian. (Penrose, p. 5.)

If the preceding distribution of the other parts of the temple is correct, the Parthenon must have been the western or smaller chamber of the cella. Judging from the name alone, we should have naturally concluded that the Parthenon was the chamber containing the statue of the virgin goddess; but there appear to have been two reasons why this name was not given to the eastern chamber. First, the length of the latter naturally suggested the appropriation to it of the name of Hecatompedon; and secondly, the eastern chamber occupied the ordinary position of the adytum, containing the statue of the deity, and may therefore have been called from this circumstance the Virgin‘s-Chamber, though in reality it was not the abode of the goddess. It appears, from the inscriptions already referred to, that the Parthenon was used in the Peloponnesian war as, the public treasury; for while we find in the Hecatompedon such treasures as would serve for the purpose of ornament, the Parthenon contained bullion, and a great many miscellaneous articles which we cannot suppose to have been placed in the shrine alongside of the statue of the goddess. But we know from [p. 1.274]later authorities that the treasury in the temple was called Opisthodomus (Harpocrat., Suid., Etym. M., s. v. Ὀπισθόδομος; Schol. ad Aristoph. Plut. 1193; Böckh, Inscr. No. 76); and we may therefore conclude, that as the Parthenon was the name of the whole building, the western chamber ceased to be called by this name, and acquired that of the Opisthodomus, which was originally the entrance to it. It appears further from the words of one of the Scholiasts (ad Aristoph. l.c.), as well as from the existing remains of the temple, that the eastern and western chambers were separated by a wall, and that there was no direct communication between them. Hence we can the more easily understand the account of Plutarch, who relates that the Athenians, in order to pay the greatest honour to Demetrius Poliorcetes, lodged him in the Opisthodomus of the Parthenon as a guest of the goddess. (Plut. Demetr. 23.)

In the centre of the pavement of the Hecatompedon there is a place covered with Peiraic stone, and not with marble, like the rest of the pavement. It has been usually supposed that this was the foundation on which the statue of then goddess rested; but this has been denied by K. F. Hermann, who maintains that there was an altar upon this spot. There can however be little doubt that the common opinion is correct, since there is no other place in the building to which we can assign the position of the statue. It could not have stood in the western chamber, since this was separated by a wall from the eastern. It could not have stood at the western extremity of the eastern chamber, where Ussing places it, because this part of the chamber was occupied by the western return of the interior columns (see ground-plan). Lastly, supposing the spot covered with Peiraic stone to represent an altar, the statue could not have stood between this spot and the door of the temple. The only alternative left is placing the statue either upon the above-mentioned spot, or else between it and the western return of the interior columns, where there is scarcely sufficient space left for it.

There has been a great controversy among modern scholars as to whether any part of the roof of the eastern chamber of the Parthenon was hypaethral, or pierced with an opening to the sky. Most English writers, following Stuart, had arrived at a conclusion in the affirmative; but the discussion has been recently reopened in Germany, and it seems impossible to arrive at any definite conclusion upon the subject. (Comp. K. F. Hermann, Die Hypäthral Tempel des Alterthums, 1844; Ross, Keine Hypäthral Tempel mehr, in his Hellenika, 1846, to which Bötticher replied in Der Hypäthral Tempel auf Grund des Vitruvischen Zeugnisses, 1847.) We know that, as a general rule, the Grecian temples had no windows in the walls; and consequently the light was admitted either through some opening in the roof, or through the door alone. The latter appears to have been the case in smaller temples, which could obtain sufficient light from the open door; but larger temples must necessarily have been in comparative darkness, if they received light from no other quarter. And although the temple was the abode of the deity, and not a place of meeting, yet it is impossible to believe that the Greeks left in comparative darkness the beautiful paintings and statues with which they decorated the interior of their temples. We have moreover express evidence that light was admitted into temples through the roof. This appears to have been done in two ways, either by windows or openings in the tiles of the roof, or by leaving a large part of the latter open to the sky. The former was the case in the temple of Eleusis. (Plut. Per. 13, ὀπαῖον Ξενοκλῆς ἐκορύφωσε: comp. Pollux, 2.54, ὀπαῖον οἱ Ἀττικοὶ τὴν κεραμίδα ἐκάλουν, τὴν ὀπὴν εἴχεν. There can be little doubt that the naos or eastern chamber of the Parthenon must have obtained its light in one or other of these ways; but the testimony of Vitruvius (3.1) cannot be quoted in favour of the Parthenon being hypaethral, as there are strong reasons for believing the passage to be corrupt.5 If the Parthenon was really hypaethral, we must place the opening to the sky between the statue and the eastern door, since we cannot suppose that such an exquisite work as the chryselephantine statue of Athena was not protected by a covered roof.

Before quitting the Parthenon, there is one interesting point connected with its construction, which must not be passed over without notice. It has been discovered within the last few years, that in the Parthenon, and in some others of the purer specimens of Grecian architecture, there is a systematic deviation from ordinary rectilinear construction. Instead of the straight lines in ordinary architecture, we find various delicate curves in the Parthenon. It is observed that “the most important curves in point of extent, are those which form the horizontal lines of the building where they occur ; such as the edges of the steps, and the lines of the entablature, which are usually considered to be straight level lines, but in the steps of the Parthenon, and some other of the best examples of Greek Doric are convex curves, lying in vertical plains ; the lines of the entablature being also curves nearly parallel to the steps and in vertical plains.” The existence of curves in Greek buildings is mentioned by Vitruvius (3.3), but it was not until the year 1837, when much of the rubbish which encumbered the stylobate of the Parthenon had been removed by the operations carried on by the Greek government, that the curvature was discovered by Mr. George Pennethorne, an English architect then at Athens. Subsequently the curves [p. 1.275]were noticed by Messrs. Hofer and Schaubert, German architects, and communicated by them to the “Wiener Bauzeitung.” More recently a full and elaborate account of these curves has been given by Mr. Penrose, who went to Athens under the patronage of the Society of Dilettanti for the purpose of investigating this subject, and who published the results of his researches in the magnificent work, to which we have already so often referred. Mr. Penrose remarks that it is not surprising that the curves were not sooner discovered from an inspection of the building, since the amount of curvature is so exquisitely managed that it is not perceptible to a stranger standing opposite to the front ; and that before the excavations the steps were so much encumbered as to have prevented any one looking along their whole length. The curvature may now be easily remarked by a person who places his eye in such a position as to look along the lines of the step or entablature from end to end, which in architectural language is called boning.

For all architectural details we refer to Mr. Penrose's work, who has done far more to explain the construction of the Parthenon than any previous writer. There are two excellent models of the Parthenon by Mr. Lucas, in the Elgin Room at the British Museum, one a restoration of the temple, and the other its ruined aspect. (Comp. Laborde and Paccard, Le Parthénon, Documents pour servir à une Restoration, Paris, 1848; Ussing, DeParthenone ejusque partibus Disputatio, Hauniae, 1849.)

It has been already stated that the Parthenon was converted into a Christian church, dedicated to the Virgin-Mother, probably in the sixth century. Upon the conquest of Athens by the Turks, it was changed into a mosque, and down to the year 1687 the building remained almost entire with the exception of the roof. Of its condition before this year we have more than one account. In 1674 drawings of its sculptures were made by Carrey, an artist employed for this purpose by the Marquis de Nointel, the French ambassador at Constantinople. These drawings are still extant and have been of great service in the restoration of the sculptures, especially in the pediments. In 1676 Athens was visited by Spon and Wheler, each of whom published an account of the Parthenon. (Spon, Voyage du Levant, 1678; Wheler, Journey into Greece, 1682.) In 1687, when Athens was besieged by the Venetians under Morosini, a shell, falling into the Parthenon, inflamed the gunpowder, which had been placed by the Turks in the eastern chamber, and reduced the centre of the Parthenon to a heap of ruins. The walls of the eastern chamber were thrown down together with all the interior columns, and the adjoining columns of the peristyle. Of the northern side of the peristyle eight columns were wholly or partially thrown down ; and of the southern, six columns ; while of the pronaos only one column was left standing. The two fronts escaped, together with a portion of the western chamber. Morosini, after the capture of the city, attempted to carry off some of the statues in the western pediment; but, owing to the unskilfulness of the Venetians, they were thrown down as they were being lowered, and were dashed in pieces. At the beginning of the present century, many of the finest sculptures of the Parthenon were removed to England, as has been mentioned above. In 1827 the Parthenon received fresh injury, from the bombardment of the city in that year; but even in its present state of desolation, the magnificence of its ruins still strikes the spectator with astonishment and admiration.

4. The Erechtheium.

The Erechtheium (Ἐρεχθεῖον) was the most revered of all the sanctuaries of Athens, and was closely connected with the earliest legends of Attica. Erechtheus or Erichthonius, for the same person is signified under the two names, occupies a most important position in the Athenian religion. His story is related variously; but it is only necessary on the present occasion to refer to those portions of it which. serve to illustrate the following account of the building which bears his name. Homer represents Erechtheus as born of the Earth, and brought up by the goddess Athena, who adopts him as her ward, and instals him in her temple at Athens, where the Athenians offer to him annual sacrifices. (Hom. Il. 2.546, Od. 7.81.) Later writers call Erechtheus or Erichthonius the son of Hephaestus and the Earth, but they also relate that he was brought up by Athena, who made him her companion in her temple. According to one form of the legend he was placed by Athena in a chest, which was entrusted to the charge of Aglaurus, Pandrosus, and Herse, the daughters of Cecrops, with strict orders not to open it; but that Aglaurus and Herse, unable to control their curiosity, disobeyed the command; and upon seeing the child in the form of a serpent entwined with a serpent, they were seized with madness, and threw themselves down from the steepest part of the Acropolis. (Apollod. 3.14.6; Hyg. Fab. 166; Paus. 1.18.2.) Another set of traditions represented Erechtheus as the god Poseidon. In the Erechtheium he was worshipped under the name of Poseidon Erechtheus; and one of the family of the Butadae, which traced their descent from him, was his hereditary priest. (Apollod. 3.15.1; Plut. Vit. X. Orat. p. 843; Xen. Sympos. 8 § 40.) Hence we may infer with Mr. Grote (Hist. of Greece, vol. i. p. 264) that “the first and oldest conception of Athens and the sacred Acropolis places it under the special protection, and represents it as the settlement and favourite abode of Athena, jointly with Poseidon; the latter being the inferior, though the chosen companion of the former, and therefore exchanging his divine appellation for the cognomen of Erechtheus.”

The foundation of the Erechtheium is thus connected with the origin of the Athenian religion. We have seen that according to Homer a temple of Athena existed on the Acropolis before the birth of Erechtheus; but Erechtheus was usually regarded as the founder of the temple, since he was the chief means of establishing the religion of Athena in Attica. This temple was also the place of his interment, and was named after him. It contained several objects of the greatest interest to every Athenian. Here was the most ancient statue of Athena Polias, that is, Athena, the guardian of the city. This statue was made of olive-wood, and was said to have fallen down from heaven. Here was the sacred olive tree, which Athena called forth from the earth in her contest with Poseidon for the possession of Attica; here also was the well of salt water which Poseidon produced by the stroke of his trident, the impression of which was seen upon the rock; and here, lastly, was the tomb of Cecrops as well as that of Erechtheus. The building also contained a separate sanctuary of Athena Polias, in which the statue of the goddess was placed, and a separate [p. 1.276]sanctuary of Pandrosus, the only one of the sisters who remained faithful to her trust. The more usual name of the entire structure was the Erechtheium, which consisted of the two temples of Athena Polias and Pandrosus. But the whole building was also frequently called the temple of Athena Polias, in consequence of the importance attached to this part of the edifice. In the ancient inscription mentioned below, it is simply called the temple which contained the ancient statue ( νεὼς ἐν τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἄγαλμα).

The original Erechtheium was burnt by the Persians; but the new temple was built upon the ancient site. This could not have been otherwise, since it was impossible to remove either the salt well or the olive tree, the latter of which sacred objects had been miraculously spared. Though it had been burnt along with the temple, it was found on the second day to have put forth a new sprout of a cubit in length, or, according to the subsequent improvement of the story, of two cubits in length. (Hdt. 8.55; Paus. 1.27.2.) The new Erechtheium was a singularly beautiful building, and one of the great triumphs of Athenian architecture. It was of the Ionic order, and in its general appearance formed a striking contrast to the Parthenon of the Doric order by its side. The rebuilding of the Erechtheium appears to have been delayed by the determination of the people to erect a new temple exclusively devoted to their goddess, and of the greatest splendour and magnificence. This new temple, the Parthenon, which absorbed the public attention and means, was followed by the Propylaea; and it was probably not till the completion of the latter in the year before the Peloponnesian war, that the rebuilding of the Erechtheium was commenced, or at least continued, with energy. The Peloponnesian war would naturally cause the works to proceed slowly until they were quite suspended, as we learn from a very interesting inscription, bearing the date of the archonship of Diodes, that is, B.C. 409-8. This inscription, which was discovered by Chandler, and is now in the British Museum, is the report of a commission appointed by the Athenians to take an account of the unfinished parts of the building. The commission consisted of two inspectors (ἐπιστάται), an architect (ἀρχιτέκτων) named Philocles, and a scribe (γραμματεύς). The inscription is printed by Böckh (Inscr. No. 160), Wilkins, Leake and others. It appears from this inscription that the principal parts of the building were finished; and we may conclude that they had been completed some time before, since Herodotus (8.55), who probably wrote in the early years of the Peloponnesian war, describes the temple as containing the olive tree and the salt well, without making any allusion to its being in an incomplete state. The report of the commission was probably followed by an order for the completion of the work; but three years afterwards the temple sustained considerable damage from a fire. (Xen. Hell. 1.6. 1) The troubles of the Athenians at the close of the Peloponnesian war must again have withdrawn attention from the building; and we therefore cannot place its completion much before B.C. 393, when the Athenians, after the restoration of the Long Walls by Conon, had begun to turn their attention again to the embellishment of their city. The words of Xenophon in the passage quoted above,-- παλαιὸς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς νεὼς,--have created difficulty, because it has been thought that it could not have been called the old temple of Athena, inasmuch as it was so new as to be yet unfinished. But we know that the “old temple of Athena” was a name commonly given to the Erechtheium to distinguish it from the Parthenon. Thus Strabo (ix. p.396) calls it, ἀρχαῖος νεὼς τῆς Πολιάδος

The Erechtheium was situated to the north of the Parthenon, and close to the northern wall of the Acropolis. The existing ruins leave no doubt as to the exact form and appearance of the exterior of the building; but the arrangement of the interior is a matter of great uncertainty. The interior of the temple was converted into a Byzantine church, which is now destroyed; and the inner part of the building presents nothing but a heap of ruins, belonging partly to the ancient temple, and partly to the Byzantine church. The difficulty of understanding the arrangement of the interior is also increased by the obscurity of the description of Pausanias. Hence it is not surprising that almost every writer upon the subject has differed from his predecessor in his distribution of some parts of the building; though there are two or three important points in which most modern scholars are now agreed. The building has been frequently examined and described by architects; but no one has devoted to it so much time and careful attention as M. Tetaz, a French architect, who has published the results of his personal investigations in the Revue Archéologique for 1851 (parts 1 and 2). We, therefore, follow M. Tetaz in his restoration of the interior, with one or two slight alterations, at the same time reminding our readers that this arrangement must after all be regarded as, to a great extent, conjectural. The walls of the ruins, according to the measurement of Tetaz, are 20.034 French metres in length from east to west, and 11.215 metres in breadth from north to south.

The form of the Erechtheium differs from every other known example of a Grecian temple. Usually a Grecian temple was an oblong figure, with two porticoes, one at its eastern, and the other at its western, end. The Erechtheium, on the contrary, though oblong in shape and having a portico at the eastern front, had no portico at its western end; but from either side of the latter a portico projected to the north and south, thus forming a kind of transept. Consequently the temple had three porticoes, called προστάσεις in the inscription above mentioned, and which may be distinguished as the eastern, the northern, and the southern prostasis, or portico. The irregularity of the building is to be accounted for partly by the difference of the level of the ground, the eastern portico standing upon ground about 8 feet higher than the northern; but still more by the necessity of preserving the different sanctuaries and religious objects belonging to the ancient temple. The skill and ingenuity of the Athenian architects triumphed over these difficulties, and even converted them into beauties.

The eastern portico stood before the principal entrance. This is proved by its facing the east, by its greater height, and also by the disposition of its columns. It consisted of six Ionic columns standing in a single line before the wall of the cella, the extremities of which are adorned with antae opposite to the extreme columns. Five of these columns are still standing.

The northern portico, called in the inscription πρόστασις πρὸς τοῦ θυρώματος, or the portico before the thyroma, stood before the other chief entrance. It also consisted of six Ionic columns, but [p. 1.277]only four of these are in front; the two others are placed, one in each flank, before a corresponding anta in the wall on either side of the door. These columns are all standing. They are about 3 feet higher, and nearly 6 inches greater in diameter, than those in the eastern portico. It must not, however, be inferred from this circumstance that the northern portico was considered of more importance than the eastern one; since the former appeared inferior from its standing on lower ground. Each of these porticoes stood before two large doors ornamented with great magnificence.

The southern portico, though also called prostasis in the inscription, was of an entirely different character. Its roof was supported by six Caryatides, or columns, of which the shafts represented young maidens in long draperies, called αἱ Κόραι in the inscription. They are arranged in the same manner as the columns in the northern portico.--namely, four in front, and one on either anta. They stand upon a basement eight feet above the exterior level; the roof which they support is flat, and about 15 feet above the floor of the building. The entire height of the portico, including the basement, was little more than half the height of the pitched roof of the temple. There appears to have been no access to this portico from the exterior of the building. There was no door in the wall behind this portico; and the only access to it from the interior of the building was by a small flight of steps leading out into the basement of the portico between the Caryatid and the anta on the eastern flank. All these steps may still be traced, and two of them are still in their place. At the bottom of them, on the floor of the building, there is a door opposite the great door of the northern porch. It is evident, from this arrangement, that this southern portico formed merely an appendage of that part


of the Erechtheium to which the great northern door gave access. A few years ago the whole of this portico was in a state of ruins, but in 1846 it was restored by M. Piscatory, then the French ambassador in Greece. Four of the Caryatides were still standing; the fifth, which was found in an excavation, was restored to its former place, and a new figure was made in place of the sixth, which was, and is, in the British Museum.

The western end of the building had no portico before it. The wall at this end consisted of a basement of considerable height, upon which were four Ionic columns, supporting an entablature. These four columns had half their diameters engaged in the wall, thus forming, with the two antae at the corners, five intercolumniations, corresponding to the front of the principal portico. The wall behind was pierced with three windows in the spaces between the engaged columns in the centre.

The frieze of the building was composed of black Eleusinian marble, adorned with figures in low relief in white marble; but of this frieze only three portions are still in their place in the eastern portico.

With respect to the interior of the building, it appears from an examination of the existing remains that it was divided by two transverse walls into three compartments, of which the eastern and the middle was about 24 feet each from east to west, and the western about 9 feet. The last was consequently a passage along the western wall, of the building, at one end of which was the great door of the northern portico, and at the other end the door of the staircase leading to the portico of the Caryatides. There can, therefore, be little doubt that this passage served as the pronaos of the central compartment. It, therefore, appears from the ruins themselves that the Erechtheium contained only two principal chambers. This is in accordance with the statement of Pausanias,who says (1.26.5) that the Erechtheium was a double building (διπλοῦν οἴκημα). [p. 1.278]He further states that the temple of Pandrosus was attached to that of Athena Polias (τῷ ναῷ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς Πανδρόσου ναὸς συνεχής, 1.27.2). Now since Herodotus and other authors mention a temple of Erechtheus, it was inferred by Stuart and others that the building contained three temples--one of Erechtheus, a second of Athena Polias, and a third of Pandrosus. But, as we have remarked above, the Erechtheium was the name of the whole building, and it does not appear that Erechtheus had any shrine peculiar to himself. Thus the olive tree which is placed by Herodotus (8.55) in the temple of Erechtheus, is said by other writers to have stood in the temple of Pandrosus. (Apollod. 3.14.1; Philochorus, ap. Dionys. de Deinarch. 3.) We may therefore safely conclude that the two temples, of which the Erechtheium consisted, were those of Athena Polias and of Pandrosus, to which there was access by the eastern and the northern porticoes respectively. That the eastern chamber was the temple of Athena Polias follows from the eastern portico being the more important of the two, as we have already shown.

The difference of level between the floors of the two temples would seem to show that there was no direct communication between them. That there was, however, some means of communication between them appears from an occurrence recorded by Philochorus (ap. Dionys. l.c.), who relates that a dog entered the temple of Polias, and having penetrated (δῦσα) from thence into that of Pandrosus, there lay down at the altar of Zeus Herceius, which was under the olive tree. Tetaz supposes that the temple of Polias was separated from the two lateral walls of the building by two walls parallel to the latter, by means of which a passage was formed on either side, one (H) on the level of the floor of the temple of Polias, and the other (G) on the level of the floor of the Pandroseium; the former communicating between the two temples by a flight of steps (I), and the latter leading to the souterrains of the building.

A portion of the building was called the Cecropium. Antiochus, who wrote about B.C. 423 [see Dict. of Biogr. vol. i. p. 195], related that Cecrops was buried in some part of the temple of Athena Polias (including under that name the whole edifice). (Παρὰ τὴν Πολίουχον αὐτὴν, Antioch. ap. Theodoret. Therapeut. 8, iv. p. 908, Schutze; Clem. Alex. Cohort. ad Gent. p. 13, Sylburg; “in Minervio,” Arnob. adv. Gent. vi. p. 66, Rome, 1542; quoted by Leake, p. 580.) In the inscription also the Cecropium is mentioned. Pausanias makes no mention of any sepulchral monuments either of Cecrops or of Erechtheus. Hence it may be inferred that none such existed; and that, as in the case of Theseus in the Theseium, the tradition of their interment was preserved by the names of Erechtheium and Cecropium, the former being applied to the whole building, and the latter to a portion of it. The position of the Cecropium is determined by the inscription, which speaks of the southern prostasis, or portico of Caryatides, as πρόστασις πρὸς τῷ Κεκροπίῳ. The northern portico is described as πρὸς τοῦ θυρώματος. From the πρὸς governing a different case in these two instances, it has been justly inferred by Wordsworth (p. 132), that in the former, the dative case signifies that the Caryatid portico was a part of, and attached to, the Cecropium; while, in the latter, the genitive indicates that the northern portico was only in the direction of or towards the portal. In addition to this there is no other part of the Pandroseium to which the Cecropium can be assigned. It cannot have been, as some writers have supposed, the western compartment,--a passage between the northern and southern porticoes,--since this was a part of the temple of Pandrosus, as we learn from the inscription, which describes the western wall as the wall before the Pandroseium ( τοῖχος πρὸς τοῦ Πανδροσείου). Still less could it have been the central apartment, which was undoubtedly the cella of the Pandroseium. We may, therefore, conclude that the Caryatid portico, with the crypt below, was the Cecropium, or sepulchre of Cecrops. It is evident that this building, which had no access to it from the exterior, is not so much a portico as



  • Temple of Athena Polias.
  • Pandroseium, divided into Pandroseium proper.
  • Cecropium.
  • A. Eastern portico: entrance to the temple of Athena Polias.
  • B. Temple of Athena Polias.
    • a. Altar of Zeus Hypatos.
    • d. Altars of Poseidon-Erechtheus, of Butes, and of Hephaestus.
    • e. Palladium.
    • f. g. Statue of Hermes. Chair of Daedalus.
    • h. Golden Lamp of Callimachus.
    C. Northern portico: entrance to the Pandroseium.
    • i. The salt well.
    • k. Opening in the pavement, by which the traces of Poseidon's trident might be seen.
    D. Pronaos of the Pandroseium, serving also as an entrance to the Cecropium.
    • l. m. Altars, of which one was dedicated to Hallo.
    E. Cella of Pandrosus.
    • n. Statue of Pandrosus.
    • o. The olive tree.
    • p. Altar of Zeus Hyrceius.
  • F. Southern portico: the Cecropium.
  • G. Passage on the level of the Pandroseium, leading to the souterrains of the building.
  • H. Passage of communication by means of the steps I. between the temples of Polias and Pandrosus.
  • K. Steps leading down to the Temenos.
  • L. Temenos or sacred enclosure of the building. [p. 1.279] an adjunct, or a chapel of the Pandroseium, intended for some particular purpose, as Leake has observed.

We may now proceed to examine the different objects in the building and connected with it. First, as to the temple of Athena Polias. In front of the portico was the altar of Zeus Hypatus (a), which Pausanias describes as situated before the entrance (πρὸ τῆς ἐσόδου). In the portico itself (ἐσελθοῦσι, Paus.) were altars of Poseidon-Erechtheus, of Butes, and of Hephaestus (b, c, d.). In the cella (ἐν τῷ ναῷ), probably near the western wall, was the Palladium (e), or statue of the goddess. In front of the latter was the golden lamp (h), made by Callimachus, which was kept burning both day and night; it was filled with oil only once a year, and had a wick of Carpasian flax (the mineral Asbestus), whence the lamp was called ἄσβεστος λύχνος. (Strab. ix. p.396.) It is mentioned as one of the offences of the tyrant Aristion, that he allowed the fire of this lamp to go out during the siege of Athens by Sulla. (Dio Cass. Frag. 124, p.51, Reimar.: Plut. Num. 9.) Pausanias says, that a brazen palm tree rising above the lamp to the roof carried off the smoke. In other parts of the cella were a wooden Hermes, said to have been presented by Cecrops, a folding chair made by Daedalus, and spoils taken from the Persians. The walls of the temple were covered with pictures of the Butadae.

The statue of Athena Polias, which was the most sacred statue of the goddess, was made of olive wood. It is said to have fallen down from heaven, and to have been a common offering of the demi many years before they were united in the city of Athens. It was emphatically the ancient statue; and, as Wordsworth has remarked, it had, in the time of Aeschylus, acquired the character of a proper name, not requiring to be distinguished by the definite article. Hence Athena says to Orestes (Aesch. Eum. 80.): ἵζου παλαιὸν ἄγκαθεν λαβὼν βρέτας. It has been observed above [p. 265] that the Panathenaic peplos was dedicated to Athena Polias, and not to the Athena of the Parthenon. This appears from the following passage of Aristophanes (Au. 826), quoted by Wordsworth:--

ΕΥ. τίς δαὶ θεὸς
  Πολιοῦχος ἔσται; τῷ ξανοῦμεν τὸν πέπλον;
ΠΕΙ. τί δ᾽ οὐκ Ἀθηναίαν ἐῶμεν Πολιάδα;

Upon which passage the scholiast remarks: τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ Πολιάδι οὔσῃ πέπλος ἐγίνετο παμποίκιλος ὃν ἀνέφερον ἐν τῇ πομπῇ τῶν Παναθηναίων. The statue of Athena seems to have been covered with the peplus. A very ancient statue of Athena, which was discovered a few years back in the Aglaurium, is supposed by K. O. Müller to have been a copy of the old Athena Polias. A description of this statue, with three views of it, is given by Mr. Scharf in the Museum of Classical Antiquities (vol. i. p. 190, seq.). “It is a sitting figure, 4 feet 6 inches in height. It has a very archaic character; the posture is formal and angular; the knees ate close together, but the left foot a little advanced; the head and arms are wanting.”

With respect to the objects in the Pandroseium, the first thing is to determine, if possible, the position of the olive tree and the salt well. That both of these were in the Pandroseium cannot admit of doubt. Two authors already quoted (Apollod. 3.14.1; Philochor. ap. Dionys. de Deinarch. 3) expressly state that the olive tree stood in the temple of Pandrosus; and that such was the case with the salt well, also, appears from Pausanias (1.26.5), who, after stating that the building is twofold, adds: “in the inner part is a well of salt water, which is remarkable for sending forth a sound like that of waves when the wind is from the south. There is, also, the figure of a trident upon the rock: these are said to be evidences of the contention of Poseidon (with Athena) for Attica.” This salt well is usually called Ξάλασσα Ἐρεχθηΐς, or simply Ξάλασσα (Apollod. 3.14.1; Hdt. 8.55); and other writers mention the visible marks of Poseidon's trident. (Ὁρῶ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν καὶ τὸ περὶ τῆς τριαίνης ἔχει τι σημεῖον, Hegesias, ap. Strab. ix. p.396.) Leake supposed that both the well and the olive tree were in the Cecropium, or the southern portico, on the ground that the two were probably near each other, and that the southern portico, by its peculiar plan and construction, seems to have been intended expressly for the olive, since a wall, fifteen feet high, protected the trunk from injury, while the air was freely admitted to its foliage, between the six statues which supported the roof. But this hypothesis is disproved by the recent investigations of Tetaz, who states that the foundation of the floor of the portico is formed of a continuous mass of stones, which could not have received any vegetation. The olive tree could not, therefore, have been in the southern portico. M. Tetaz places it, with much probability, in the centre of the cella of the Pandroseium. He imagines that the lateral walls of the temple of Polias were continued under the form of columns in the Pandroseium, and that the inner space between these columns formed the cella of the temple, and was open to the sky. Here grew the olive-tree (o) under the altar of Zeus Herceius (p), according to the statement of Philochorus (ap. Dionys. l.c.). The description by Virgil (Aen. 2.512) of the altar, at which Priam was slain, is applicable to the spot before us: “Aedibus in mediis, nudoque sub aetheris axe Ingens ara fuit, juxtaque veterrima laurus Incumbens arae atque umbra complex Penates.”

The probable position of the salt well has been determined by Tetaz, who has discovered, under the northern portico, what appear to be the marks of Poseidon's trident. Upon the removal, in 1846, of the remains of a Turkish powder magazine, which encumbered the northern portico, Tetaz observed three holes sunk in the rock; and it is not unlikely that this was the very spot shown to devout persons, and to Pausanias among the number, as the memorial of Poseidon's contest with Athena. A drawing of them is given by Mr. Penrose, which we subjoin, with his description.

“They occur upon the surface of the rock of the Acropolis, about seven feet below the level of the pavement. These singular traces consist of three holes, partly natural and partly cut in the rock; that lettered a in the plan is close to the eastern anta of the portico; it is very irregular, and seems to form part of a natural fissure; b and c, near the surface, seem also to have been natural, but are hollowed into a somewhat cylindrical shape, between 2 and 3 feet deep and 8 and 9 in diameter; d is a receptacle, as may be presumed, for water, cut 1.0 deep in the rock, and connected with the holes b and c by means of a narrow channel, alto about 1.0 deep. The channel is produced for a short distance in the direction of a, but was perhaps discontinued on its being discovered that, owing to natural crevices, [p. 1.280]it would not hold water. At the bottom of b and c were found fragments of ordinary ancient pottery. There appears to have been a low and narrow doorway through the foundation of the wall, dividing this portico from the temple, to the underground space or crypt, where these holes occur, and also some communication from above, through a slab rather different from the rest, in the pavement of the portico immediately over them.”

Pausanias has not expressly mentioned any other objects as being in the Pandroseium, but we may presume that it contained a statue of Pandrosus, and an altar of Thallo, one of the Horae, to whom, he informs us elsewhere (9.35.1), the Athenians paid divine honours jointly with Pandrosus. He has also omitted to notice the οἴκουρος ὄφις, or


Erechthonian serpent, whose habitation in the Erechtheium was called δράκαυλος, and to whom honey cakes were presented every month. (Aristoph. Lys. 759; Hdt. 8.41; Plut. Them. 10, Dem. 26; Hesych. sub voce Οἴκουρον; Soph. ap. Etymol. M. s. v. Δράκαυλος.) We have no means of determining the position of this δράκαυλος.

The Erechtheium was surrounded on most sides by a Temenos or sacred inclosure, separated from the rest of the Acropolis by a wall. This Temenos was on a lower level than the temple, and the descent to it was by a flight of steps close to the eastern portico. It was bounded on the east by a wall, extending from this portico to the wall of the Acropolis, of which a part is still extant. On the north it was bounded by the wall of the Acropolis, and on the south by a wall extending from the southern portico towards the left wing of the Propylaea. Its limits to the west cannot be ascertained. In the Temenos, there were several statues mentioned by Pausanias, name y, that of the aged priestess Lysimacha, one cubit high (comp. Plin. Nat. 34.8. s. 19. § 15); the colossal figures in brass of Erechtheus and Eumolpus, ready to engage in combat; some ancient wooden statues of Athena in the half burnt state in which they had been left by the Persians; the hunting of a wild boar; Cycnus fighting with Hercules; Theseus finding the slippers and sword of Aegeus under the rock; Theseus and the Marathonian bull; and Cylon, who attempted to obtain the tyranny at Athens. In the Temenos, also, was the habitation of two of the four maidens, called Arrephori, with their sphaerestra, or place for playing at ball. These two maidens remained a whole year in the Acropolis; and on the approach of the greater Panethenaea they received from the priestess of Polias a burden, the contents of which were unknown to themselves and to the priestess. With this burden they descended into a subterraneous natural cavern near the temple of Aphrodite in the gardens, where they deposited the burden they brought, and carried back another burden covered up. (Paus. 1.27.3; Plut. Vit. X. Orat. p. 839; Harpocr., Suid., s. v. Δειπνοφόροι.) It is probable that the Arrephori passed through the Aglaurium in their descent to the cavern above mentioned. The steps leading to the Aglaurium issued from the Temenos; and it is not impossible, considering the close connexion of the worship of Aglaurus with that of her sister Pandrosus, that the Aglaurium may have been considered as a part of the Temenos of the Erechtheium.

(Respecting the Erechtheium in general, see Leake, p. 574, seq.; Wordsworth, p. 130, seq.; Müller, De Minervae Poliadis sacris et aede, Gotting. 1820; Wilkins, Prolusiones Architectonicae, part I.; Böckh, Inscr. vol. i. p. 261; Inwood, The Erechtheion of Athens, London, 1827; Von Quaest, Das Erechtheum zu Athen, nach dem Werk des Hr. Inwood mit Verbess. &c., Berlin, 1840; Forchhammer, Hellenika, p. 31, seq.; Thiersch, Uber das Erechtheum auf der Akropolis zu Athen, Munich, 1849, in which it is maintained that the Erechtheum was the domestic palace of King Erechtheus; Bötticher, Der Poliastempel als Wohnhaus des Königs Erechtheus nach der Annahme von Fr. Thiersch, Berlin, 1851, a reply to the preceding work; Tetaz, in Revue Archéologique, for 1851, parts 1 and 2.)

5. Other Monuments on the Acropolis.

The Propylaea, the Parthenon and the Erechtheium were the three chief buildings on the Acropolis; but its summit was covered with other temples, altars, statues and works of art, the number of which was so great as almost to excite our astonishment that space could be found for them all. Of these, however, we can only mention the most important.

(i.) The Statue of Athena Promachus, one of the most celebrated works of Pheidias, was a colossal bronze figure, and represented the goddess armed and in the very attitude of battle. Hence it was distinguished from the statues of Athena in the Parthenon and the Erechtheium, by the epithet of Promachus. This Athena was also called “The Bronze, the Great Athena” ( χαλκῆ μεγάλη Ἀθηνᾶ, Dem. de Fals. Leg. p. 428.) Its position has been already described. It stood in the open air nearly opposite the Propylaea, and was one of the first objects seen after passing through the gates of the latter. It was of gigantic size. It towered even above the roof of the Parthenon; and the point of its spear and the crest of its helmet were visible off the promontory of Sunium to ships approaching Athens. [p. 1.281](Paus.1.28.2; comp. Herod.5.77.) With its pedestal it must have stood about 70 feet high. Its position and colossal proportions are shown in an ancient coin of Athens figured below [p. 286], containing a rude representation of the Acropolis. It was still standing in A.D. 395, and is said to have frightened away Alaric when he came to sack the Acropolis. (Zosim. 5.6.) The exact site of this statue is now well ascertained, since the foundations of its pedestal have been discovered.

(ii.) A brazen Quadriga, dedicated from the spoils of Chalcis, stood on the left hand of a person, as he entered the Acropolis through the Propylaea. (Hdt. 5.77; Paus. 1.28.2.)

(iii.) The Gigantomachia, a composition in sculpture, stood upon the southern or Cimonian wall, and just above the Dionysiac theatre ; for Plutarch relates that a violent wind precipitated into the Dionysiac theatre a Dionysus, which was one of the figures of the Gigantomachia. (Paus. 1.25.2; Plut. Ant. 60.) The Gigantomachia was one of four compositions, each three feet in height, dedicated by Attalus, the other three representing the battle of the Athenians and Amazons, the battle of Marathon, and the destruction of the Gauls by Attalus. (Paus. l.c.) If the Gigantomachia stood towards the eastern end of the southern wall, we may conclude that the three other compositions were ranged in a similar manner upon the wall towards the west, and probably extended as far as opposite the Parthenon. Mr. Penrose relates that south-east of the Parthenon, there has been discovered upon the edge of the Cimonian wall a platform of Piraic stone, containing two plain marble slabs, which are perhaps connected with these sculptures.

(iv.) Temple of Artemis Brauronia, standing between the Propylaea and the Parthenon, of which the foundations have been recently discovered. (Paus. 1.23.7.) Near it, as we learn from Pausanias, was a brazen statue of the Trojan horse (ἵππος δούρειος), from which Menestheus, Teucer and the sons of Theseus were represented looking out (ὑπερκύπτουσι). From other authorities we learn that spears projected from this horse (Hesych. sub voce δούριος ἵππος; comp. δούρειος ἵππος, κρυπτὸν ἀμπισχὼν δόρυ, Eur. Tro. 14); and also that it was of colossal size (ἵππων ὑπόντων μέγεθος ὅσον δούριος, Aristoph. Birds 1128; Hesych. sub voce Κρίος ἀσελγόκερως). The basis of this statue has also been discovered with an inscription, from which we learn that it was dedicated by Chaeredemus, of Coele (a quarter in the city), and that it was made by Strongylion. (Χαιρέδημος Εὐαγγέλου ἐκ Κοίλης ἀνέθηκεν. Στρογγυλίων ἐποίησεν; Zeitschrift für die Alterthumswissenschaft, 1842, p. 832.)

(v.) Temple of Rome and Augustus, not mentioned by Pausanias, stood about 90 feet before the eastern front of the Parthenon. Leake observes (p. 353, seq.) that from a portion of its architrave still in existence, we may infer that it was circular, 23 feet in diameter, of the Ionic or Corinthian order, and about 50 feet in height, exclusive of a basement. An inscription found upon the site informs us that it was dedicated by the Athenian people θεᾷ Ῥώμῃ καὶ Σεβαστῷ Καίσαρι. It was dedicated to Rome and Augustus, because this emperor forbade the provinces to raise any temple to him, except in conjunction with Rome. (Suet. Aug. 52.)

In following Pausanias through the Acropolis, we must suppose that he turned to the right after passing through the Propylaea, and went straight to the Parthenon; that; from the Parthenon he proceeded to the eastern end of the Acropolis; and returned along the northern side, passing the Erechtheium and the statue of Athena Promachus.


Before accompanying Pausanias in his route through the city, it will be convenient to notice the various places and monuments, as to the site of which there can be little or no doubt. These are the hills Areiopagus, Pnyx, of the Nymphs and Museium; the Dionysiac theatre, and the Odeium of Herodes on the southern side of the Acropolis; the cave of Apollo and Pan, with the fountain Clepsydra, and the cave of Aglaurus on the northern side of the Acropolis; the temples of Theseus and of Zeus Olympius; the Horologium of Andronicus Cyrrhestes; the Choragic monument of Lysicrates; the Stadium; the gateway and the aqueduct of Hadrian; and, lastly, the Agora and the Cerameicus.

A. Places and Monuments, as to the site of which there is little or no doubt.

1. The Areiopagus.

The Areiopagus ( Ἄρειος πάγος), or Hill of Ares, was the rocky height opposite the western end of the Acropolis, from which it was separated only by some hollow ground. Of its site there can be no doubt, both from the description of Pausanias, and from the account of Herodotus, who relates that it was a height over against the Acropolis, from which the Persians assailed the western extremity of the Acropolis. (Paus. 1.28.5; Hdt. 8.52; see above, p. 266a.) According to tradition it was called the Hill of Ares, because Ares was brought to trial here before the assembled gods by Poseidon, on account of his murdering Halirrhothius, the son of the latter. The spot is memorable as the place of meeting of the Council of Areiopagus ( ἐν Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ βουλή), frequently called the Upper Council ( ἄνω βουλή), to distinguish it from the Council of Five Hundred, which held its sittings in the valley below the hill. The Council of Areiopagus met on the south-eastern summit of the rock. There are still sixteen stone steps cut in the rock, leading up to the hill from the valley of the Agora; and immediately above the steps is a bench of stones excavated in the rock, forming three sides of a quadrangle, and facing the south. Here the Areiopagites sat, as judges, in the open air (ὑπαίθριοι ἐδικάζοντο, Pollux, 8.118). On the eastern and western sides is a raised block. Wordsworth supposes these blocks to be the two rude stones which Pausanias saw here, and which are described by Euripides as assigned, the one to the accuser, the other to the criminal, in the causes which were tried in this court:--

ὡς δ᾽ εἰς Ἄρειον ὄχθον ἧκον ἐς δίκην τ̓
ἔστην, ἐγὼ μὲν θάτερον λαβὼν βάθρον,
τὸ δ᾽ ἄλλο πρέσβειῤ ἥπερ ἦν Ἐρινύων.

(Eurip. Iph. T. 961.
Of the Council itself an account has been given elsewhere. (Dict. of Ant. s. v.) The Areiopagus possesses peculiar interest to the Christian as the spot from which the Apostle Paul preached to the men of Athens. At the foot of the height on the north-eastern side there are [p. 1.282]ruins of a small church, dedicated to S. Dionysius the Areiopagite, and commemorating his conversion here by St. Paul. (Act. Apost. 17.34.)

At the opposite or south-eastern angle of the hill, 45 or 50 yards distant from the steps, there is. a wide chasm in the rocks, leading to a gloomy recess, within which there is a fountain of very dark water. This was the sanctuary of the Eumenides, commonly called by the Athenians the Semnae (αἱ Σεμναί), or Venerable Goddesses. (Paus. 1.28.6: ἐπιωρκηκὼς τὰς Σεμνὰς Θεὰς ἐν Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ, Dinarch. c. Dem. p. 35, Reiske.) The cavern itself formed the temple, with probably an artificial construction in front. Its position is frequently referred to by the Tragic poets, who also speak of the chasm of the earth (πάγον παρ᾽ αὐτὸν χάσμα δύσονται χθονός, Eur. Elect. 1271), and the subterranean chamber (θάλαμοι .... κατὰ γῆς, Aesch. Eumen. 1004, seq.). It was probably in consequence of the subterranean nature of the sanctuary of these goddesses that torches were employed in their ceremonies. “Aeschylus imagined the procession which escorted the Eumenides to this their temple, as descending the rocky steps above described from the platform of the Areiopagus, then winding round the eastern angle of that hill, and conducting them with the sound of music and the glare of torches along this rocky ravine to this dark enclosure.” (Wordsworth.) Within the sacred enclosure was the monument of Oedipus. (Paus. 1.28.7.)

Between the sanctuary of the Semnae and the lowest gate of the Acropolis stood the heroum of Hesychus, to whom a ram was immolated before the sacrifices to the Eumenides. (Schol. ad Soph. Oed. Col. 489.) His descendants, the Hesychidae, were the hereditary priests of these goddesses. (Comp. Müller, Eumenides, p. 206, seq., Engl. Trans.) Near the same spot was the monument of Cylon, erected on the spot where he was slain. (Leake, p. 358.)

2. The Pnyx.

The Pnyx (Πνύξ), or place of assembly of the Athenian people, formed part of the surface of a low rocky hill, at the distance of a quarter of a mile from the centre of the Areiopagus hill. “The Pnyx may be best described as an area formed by the segment of a circle, which, as it is very nearly equal to a semicircle, for the sake of conciseness, we shall assume as such. The radius of this semicircle varies from about 60 to 80 yards. It is on a sloping ground, which shelves down very gently toward the hollow of the ancient agora, which was at its foot on the NE. The chord of this semicircle is the highest part of this slope; the middle of its arc is the lowest; and this last point of the curve is cased by a terras wall of huge polygonal blocks, and of about 15 feet in depth at the centre: this terras wall prevents the soil of the slope from lapsing down into the valley of the agora beneath it. The chord of this semicircle is formed by a line of rock, vertically hewn, so as to present to the spectator, standing in the area, the face of a flat wall.6 In the middle point of this wall of rock, and projecting from, and applied to it, is a solid rectangular block, hewn from the same rock.” (Wordsworth.) This is the celebrated Bema (βῆμα), or pulpit, often called “the Stone” ( λίθος, comp. ἐν ἀγορᾷ πρὸς τῷ λίθῳ, Plut. Sol. 25), from whence the orators addressed the multitude in the semicircular area before them. The bema looks towards the NE., that is, towards the agora. It is 11 feet broad, rising from a graduated basis: the summit is broken; but the present height is about 20 feet. It was accessible on the right and left of the orator by a flight of steps. As the destinies of Athens were swayed by the orators from this pulpit, the term “the stone” is familiarly used as a figure of the government

  • A. The Bema.
  • B. Semicircular edge of the Pnyx.
  • C. Rock-cut wall.
  • D. Remains of ancient Bema?

of the state; and the “master of the stone” indicates the ruling statesman of the day (ὅστις κρατεῖ νῦν τοῦ λίθου τοῦ 'ν τῇ πυκνί, Aristoph. Peace 680; comp. Acharn. 683, Thesmoph. 528, seq.) The position of the bema commanded a view of the Propylaea and the other magnificent edifices of the Acropolis, while beneath it was the city itself studded with monuments of Athenian glory. The Athenian orators frequently roused the national feelings of their audience by pointing to “that Propylaea there,” and to the other splendid buildings, which they had in view from the Pnyx. (Προπυλαῖα ταῦτα, Hesych. sub voce Dem. c. Androt. pp. 597, 617; Aesch. de Fals. Leg. p. 253.)

The position and form of the remains that have been just described agree so perfectly with the statements of ancient writers respecting the Pnyx (see authorities quoted by Leake, p. 179), that it is surprising that there should ever have been any doubt of their identity. Yet Spon took them for those of the Areiopagus. Wheler was in doubt whether they belonged to the Areiopagus or the Odeium, and Stuart regarded them as those of the theatre of Regilla. Their true identity was first pointed out by Chandler; and no subsequent writer has entertained any doubt on the subject.

The Pnyx appears to have been under the especial protection of Zeus. In the wall of rock, on either side of the bema, are several niches for votive offerings. In clearing away the earth below, several of these offerings were discovered, consisting of bas-reliefs representing different parts of the body in white marble, and dedicated to Zeus the Supreme (Διῒ Ὑψίστῳ). [p. 1.283]Some of them are now in the British Museum. (Leake, p. 183; Dodwell, vol. i. p. 402.)

The area of the Pnyx contained about 12,000 square yards, and could therefore easily accommodate the whole of the Athenian citizens. The remark of an ancient grammarian, that it was constructed with the simplicity of ancient times (κατὰ τὴν παλαιὰν ἁπλότητα, Pollux, 8.132), is borne out by the existing remains. We know moreover that it was not provided with seats, with the exception of a few wooden benches in the first row. (Aristoph. Ach. 25.) Hence the assembled citizens either stood or sat on the bare rock (χαμαί, Aristoph. Wasps 43); and accordingly the Sausage-seller, when he seeks to undermine the popularity of Cleon, offers a cushion to the demus. (Aristoph Equit. 783.) It was not provided, like the theatres, with any species of awning to protect the assembly from the rays of the sun; and this was doubtless one reason why the assembly was held at day-break. (Mure, vol. ii. p. 63.)

It has been remarked that a traveller who mounts the bema of the Pnyx may safely say, what perhaps cannot be said with equal certainty of any other spot, and of any other body of great men in antiquity: Here have stood Demosthenes, Pericles, Themistocles, Aristides, and Solon. This remark, however, would not be true in its full extent, if we were to give credence to a passage of Plutarch (Plut. Them. 19), to which allusion has been already made, Plutarch relates that the bema originally looked towards the sea, and that it was afterwards removed by the Thirty Tyrants so as to face the land, because the sovereignty of the sea was the origin of the democracy, while the pursuit of agriculture was favourable to the oligarchy, But from no part of the present Pnyx could the sea be seen, and it is evident, from the existing remains, that it is of much more ancient date than the age of the Thirty Tyrants. Moreover, it is quite incredible that a work of such gigantic proportions should have been erected by the Thirty, who never even summoned an assembly of the citizens. And even if they had effected such a change in the place of meeting for the citizens, would not the latter, in the restoration of the democracy, have returned to the former site? We have therefore no hesitation in rejecting the whole story along with Forchhammer and Mure, and of regarding it with the latter writer as one of the many anecdotes of what may be called the moral and political mythology of Greece, invented to give zest to the narrative of interesting events, or the actions and characters of illustrious men.

Wordsworth, however, accepts Plutarch's story, and points out remains which he considers to be those of the ancient Pnyx a little behind the present bema. It is true that there is behind the existing bema, and


on the summit of the rock, an esplanade and terrace, which has evidently been artificially levelled; and near one of its extremities are appearances on the ground which have been supposed to betoken the existence of a former bema. It has been usually stated, in refutation of this hypothesis, that not even from this higher spot could the sea be seen, because the city wall ran across the top of the hill, and would have effectually interrupted any view of the sea; but this answer is not sufficient, since we have brought forward reasons for believing that this was not the direction of the ancient wall. This esplanade, however, is so much smaller than the present Pnyx, that it is impossible to believe that it could ever have been used as the ordinary assembly of the citizens; and it is much more probable that it served for purposes connected with the great assembly in the Pnyx below, being perhaps covered in part with buildings or booths for the convenience of the Prytanes, scribes, and other public functionaries. Mure calls attention to a passage in Aristophanes, where allusion is made to such appendages (τὴν Πύκνα πᾶσαν καὶ τὰς σκηνὰς καὶ τὰς διόδους διαθρῆσαι, Thesm. 659); and though the Pnyx is here used in burlesque application to the Thesmophorium, where the female assemblies were held, this circumstance does not destroy the point of the allusion. (Mure, vol. ii. p. 319.)

The whole rock of the Pnyx was thickly inhabited in ancient times, as it is flattened and cut in all directions. We have already had occasion to point out [see above, p. 261b.] that even the western side of the hill was covered with houses.

3. Hill of the Nymphs.

This hill, which lay a little to the NW. of the Pnyx, used to be identified with the celebrated Lycabettus, which was situated on the other side of the city, outside the walls; but its proper name has been restored to it, from an inscription found on its, summit. (Böckh, Inscr. no. 453; Ross, in Kunstblatt, 1837, p. 391.)

4. The Museíum.

The Museium (τὸ Μουσεῖον) was the hill to the SW. of the Acropolis, from which it is separated by an intervening valley. It is only a little lower than the Acropolis itself. It is described by Pausanias (1.25.8) as a hill within the city walls, opposite the Acropolis, where the poet Musaeus was buried, and where a monument was erected to a certain Syrian, whose name Pausanias does not mention. There are still remains of this monument, from the inscriptions upon which we learn that it was the. monument of Philopappus, the grandson of Antiochus, who, having been deposed by Vespasian, came to Rome with his two sons, Epiphanes and Callinicus. [Dict. of Biogr. vol. I. p. 194.] Epiphanes was the father of Philopappus, who had become an Attic citizen of the demus Besa, and he is evidently [p. 1.284]the Syrian to whom Pausanias alludes. “This monument was built in a form slightly concave towards the front. The chord of the curve was about 30 feet in length: in front it presented three niches between four pilasters; the central niche was wider than the two lateral ones, concave and with a semicircular top; the others were quadrangular. A seated statue in the central niche was obviously that of the person to whom the monument was erected. An inscription below the niche shows that he was named Philopappus, son of Epiphanes, of the demus Besa (Φιλόπαππος Ἐπιφάνους Βησαιεύς). On the right hand of this statue was a king Antiochus, son of a king Antiochus, as we learn from the inscription below it (βασιλεὺς Ἀντίοχος βασίλεως Ἀντιόχου). In the niche on the other side was seated Seleucus Nicator (βασιλεὺς Σέλευκος Ἀντιόχου Νικάτωρ). On the pilaster to the right of Philopappus of Besa is the inscription C.IVLIVS C. F.FAB (i. e. Caius Julius, Caii filius, Fabiâ) ANTIOCHVS PHILOPAPPVS, COS. FRATER ARVALIS, ALLECTVS INTER PRAETORIOS AB IMP. CAESARE NERVA TRAIANO OPTVMO AVGVSTO GERMANICO DACICO. On that to the left of Philopappus was inscribed Βασιλεὺς Ἀντίοχος Φιλόπαππος, βασίλεως Ἐπιφάνους, τοῦ Ἀντιόχου. Between the niches and the base of the monument, there is a representation in high relief of the triumph of a Roman emperor


similar to that on the arch of Titus at Rome. The part of the monument now remaining consists of the central and eastern niches, with remains of the two pilasters on that side of the centre. The statues in two of the niches still remain, but without heads, and otherwise imperfect; the figures of the triumph, in the lower compartment, are not much better preserved. This monument appears, from Spon and Wheler, to have been nearly in the same state in 1676 as it is at present; and it is to Ciriaco d'Ancona, who visited Athens two centuries earlier, that we are indebted for a knowledge of the deficient parts of the monument.” (Leake, p. 494, seq.; comp. Stuart, vol. 3.100.5; Prokesch, Denkwürdigkeiten, vol. ii. p. 383; Böckh, Inscr. no. 362; Orelli, Inscr. no. 800.)

Of the fortress, which Demetrius Poliorcetes erected on the Museium in B.C. 229 (Paus. 1.25.8; Plut. Demetr. 34), all trace has disappeared.

There must have been many houses on the Museium, for the western side of the hill is almost covered with traces of buildings cut in the rocks, and the remains of stairs are visible in several places,--another proof that the ancient city wall did not run along the top of this hill. [See above, p. 261.] There are also found on this spot some wells and cisterns of a circular form, hollowed out in the rock, and enlarging towards the base. At the eastern foot of the hill, opposite the Acropolis, there are three ancient excavations in the rock; that in the middle is of an irregular form, and the other two are eleven feet square. One of them leads towards another subterraneous chamber of a circular form, twelve feet in diameter at the base, and diminishing towards the top, in the shape of a bell. These excavations are sometimes called ancient baths, and sometimes prisons: hence one of them is said to have been the prison of Socrates.

5. The Dionysiac Theatre.

The stone theatre of Dionysus was commenced in B.C. 500, but was not completely finished till B.C. 340, during the financial administration of Lycurgus. (Paus. 1.29.16; Plut. Vit.X. Orat. pp.841, 852.) A theatre, however, might, as a Gothic church, be used for centuries without being quite finished; and there can be no doubt that it was in the stone theatre that all the great productions of the Grecian drama were performed. This theatre lay beneath the southern wall of the Acropolis, near its eastern extremity. The middle of it was excavated out of the rock, and its extremities were supported by solid piers of masonry. The rows of seats were in the form of curves, rising one above another; the diameter increased with the ascent. Two rows of seats at the top of the theatre are now visible; but the rest are concealed by the accumulation of soil. The accurate dimensions of the theatre cannot now be ascertained. Its termination at the summit is evident; but to what extent it descended into the valley cannot be traced. From the summit to the hollow below, which may, however, be higher than the ancient orchestra, the slope is about 300 feet in length. There can be no question that it must have been sufficiently large to have accommodated the whole body of Athenian citizens, as well as the strangers who flocked to the Dionysiac festival. It has been supposed from a passage of Plato, that the theatre was capable of containing more than 30,000 spectators, since Socrates speaking of Agathon's dramatic victory in the theatre says that “his glory was manifested in the presence of more than three myriads of Greeks” (ἐμφανὴς ἐγένετο ἐν μάρτυσι τῶν Ἑλλήνων πλέον τρισμυρίοις, Plat. Symp. p. 175e.) It may, however, be doubted whether these words are to be taken literally, since the term “three myriads” appears to have been used as a round number to signify the whole body of adult Athenian citizens. Thus Herodotus (5.97) says that Aristagoras deceived three myriads of Athenians, and Aristophanes (Aristoph. Eccl. 1132) employs the words πολιτῶν πλεῖον τρισμυρίων exactly in the same sense.

The magnificence of the theatre is attested by Dicaearchus, who describes it as “the most beautiful theatre in the world, worthy of mention, great and wonderful” (ὧδε ἦν τῶν ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένῃ κάλλιστον θέατρον, ἀξιόλογον, μέγα καὶ θαυμαστόν, Dicaearch. Βίος τῆς Ἑλλάδος, p. 140.)7 The [p. 1.285]spectators sat in the open air, but probably protected from the rays of the sun by an awning, and from their elevated seats they had a distinct view of the sea and of the peaked hills of Salamis in the horizon. Above them rose the Parthenon, and the other buildings of the Acropolis, so that they sat under the shadow of the ancestral gods of their country. The position of the spectators, as sitting under the temple of Athena, and the statue of the Zeus of the Citadel (Ζεὺς Πολιεύς, Paus. 1.24.4), is evidently alluded to by Aeschylus (Eumen. 997, seq.), to which passage Wordsworth has directed attention :-- “χαίρετ᾽ ἀστικὸς λεὼς,
ἴκγαρ ἥμενοι Διὸς,
Παρθένου φίλας φίλοι
σωφρονοῦντες ἐν χρόνῳ.
Πάλλαδος δ᾽ ὑπὸ πτεροῖς
ὄντας ἅζεται πατήρ.


Above the upper seats of the theatre and the Cimonian wall of the Acropolis is a grotto (σπήλαιον), which was converted into a small temple by Thrasyllus, a victorious choragus, to commemorate the victory of his chorus, B.C. 320, as we learn from an inscription upon it. Hence it is usually called the Choragic Monument of Thrasyllus. Within the cavern were statues of Apollo and Artemis destroying the children of Niobe; and upon the entablature of the temple was a colossal figure of Dionysus. This figure is now in the British Museum; but it has lost its head and arms. Pausanias (1.21.3), in his description of the cavern, speaks of a tripod above it, without mentioning the statue of Dionysus; but there is a hole sunk in the lap of the statue, in which was probably inserted the tripod. The custom of supporting tripods by statues was not uncommon. (Leake, p. 186; Vaux, Antiq. in British Museum, p. 114.) This cavern was subsequently converted into the church of Panaghía Spiliótissa, or the Holy Virgin of the Grotto; and was used as such when Dodwell visited Athens. It. is now, however, a simple cave; and the temple and the church are both in ruins. A large fragment of the architrave of the temple, with a part of the inscription upon it, is now lying upon the slope of the theatre: it has been hewn into a drinking trough. (Wordsworth, p. 90.) The cave is about 34 feet in length, with an average breadth of 20 feet. The entire height of the monument of Thrasyllus is 29 feet 5 inches. (Stuart.)

Above the monument are two columns, which evidently did not form part of the building. Their triangular summits supported tripods, dedicated by choragi who had gained prizes in the theatre below. A little to the west of the cave is a large rectangular niche, in which no doubt a statue once stood.


A brass coin of Athens in the British Museum gives a representation of the Dionysiac theatre viewed from below. The seats for the spectators are distinctly seen, together with the Cimonian wall of the Acropolis; and above, the Parthenon in the centre, with the Propylaea on the left. The artist has also represented the cave between the theatre and the wall of the Acropolis, described above, together with other smaller excavations, of which traces still exist. The same subject is also represented on a vase found at Aulis, on which appear the theatre, the monument of Thrasyllus, the tripodial columns, and above them the polygonal walls of the Acropolis, crowned by the


[p. 1.286]

Parthenon. It seems that this point of view was greatly admired by the ancients. Dicaearchus alludes to this view, when he speaks (l.c.) of “the magnificent temple of Athena, called the Parthenon, rising above the theatre, and striking the spectator with admiration.” (Leake, p. 183, seq.; Dodwell, vol. i. p. 299; Wordsworth, p. 89, seq.)

6. The Odeium of Herodes or Regilla.

The Odeium or Music-theatre8 of Regilla also lay beneath the southern wall of the Acropolis, but at its western extremity. It was built in the time of the Antonines by Herodes Atticus, who called it the Odeium of Regilla in honour of his deceased wife. It is not mentioned by Pausanias in his description of Athens, who explains the omission in a subsequent part of his work by the remark that it was not commenced at the time hewrote his first book. (Paus.7.20.3.) Pausanias remarks (l.c.) that it surpassed all other Odeia in Greece, as well in dimensions as in other respects; and its roof of cedar wood was particularly admired. (Philostr. Vit. Soph. 2.1.5.) The length of its diameter within the walls was about 240 feet, and it is calculated to have furnished accommodation for about 6000 persons. There are still considerable remains of the building; but, “in spite of their extent, good preservation, and the massive material of which they are composed, they have a poor appearance, owing to the defects of the Roman style of architecture, especially of the rows of small and apparently useless arches with which the more solid portions of the masonry are perforated, and the consequent number of insignificant parts into which it is thus subdivided.” (Mure, vol. ii. p. 91.) It is surprising that Stuart should have supposed the remains of this comparatively small Roman building to be those of the great Dionysiac theatre, in which the dramas of the Athenian poets were performed.

7. Cave of Apollo and Pan, and Fountain of Clepsydra.

The Cave of Apollo and Pan, more usually called the Cave of Pan, lay at the base of the NW. angle of the Acropolis. It is described by Herodotus (6.105) as situated below the Acropolis, and by Pausanias (1.28.4) as a little below the Propylaea, with a spring of water near it. The worship of Apollo in this cave was probably of great antiquity. Here he. is said to have had connection with Creusa, the mother of Ion; and hence the cave is frequently mentioned in the “Ion” of Euripides. (Paus. l.c.; Eur. Ion 506, 955, &c.) The worship of Pan in this cave was not introduced till after the battle of Marathon, in consequence of the services which he rendered to the Athenians on that occasion. His statue was dedicated by Miltiades, and Simonides wrote the inscription for it. (Simonid. Reliqu. p. 176, ed. Schneidewin.) A statue of Pan, now in the public library at Cambridge, was discovered in a garden a little below the cave, and may possibly be the identical figure dedicated by Miltiades. The cave measures about 18 feet in length, 30 in height, and 15 in depth. There are two excavated ledges cut in the rock, on which we may suppose statues of the two deities to have stood, and also numerous niches and holes for the reception of votive offerings.

The fountain near the cave, of which Pausanias does not mention the name, was called Clepsydra (Κλεψύδρα), more anciently Empedo (Ἐμπεδῶ). It derived the name of Clepsydra from its being supposed to have had a subterraneous communication with the harbour of Phalerum. (Aristoph. Lys. 912, Schol. ad loc., ad Vesp. 853, Av. 1694; Hesych. s. vv. Κλεψύδρα, Κλεψίρρυτον, Πέδω.) “The only access to this fountain is from the enclosed platform of the Acropolis above it. The approach to it is at the north of the northern wing of the Propylaea. Here we begin to descend a flight of forty-seven steps cut in the rock, but partially cased with slabs of marble. The descent is arched over with brick, and opens out into a small subterranean chapel, with niches cut in its sides. In the chapel is a well, surmounted with a peristomium of marble: below which is. the water now at a distance of about 30 feet.” (Wordsworth.) This flight of steps is seen in the annexed coin from the British Museum, in which the cave of Pan is represented at the foot, and the statue of Athena Promachus and the Parthenon at the summit. The obverse is the size of the coin: the reverse is enlarged.


8. The Aglaurium.

The sanctuary of Aglaurus, one of the three daughters of Cecrops, was also a cavern situated in the northern face of the Acropolis. It is evident from several passages in the Ion of Euripides (8, 296, 506, 953, 1413) that the Aglaurium was in some part of the precipices called the Long Rocks, which ran [p. 1.287]eastward of the grotto of Pan. [See above, p. 266b.] It is said to have been the spot from which Aglaurus and her sister Herse threw themselves from the rocks of the Acropolis, upon opening the chest which contained Erichthonius (Paus. 1.18.2); and it was also near this sanctuary that the Persians gained access to the Acropolis. (Hdt. 8.35.) We learn from Pausanias that the cave was situated at the steepest part of the hill, which is also described by Herodotus as precipitous at this point. At the distance of about 60 yards to the east of the cave of Pan and at the base of a precipice is a remarkable cavern; and 40 yards farther in the same direction, there is another cave much smaller, immediately under the wall of the citadel, and only a few yards distant from the northern portico of the Erechtheium. In the latter there are thirteen niches, which prove it to have been a consecrated spot; and there can be no doubt that the larger was also a sanctuary, though niches are not equally apparent, in consequence of the surface of the rock not being so well preserved as in the smaller cavern. One of these two caves was undoubtedly the Aglaurium. Leake conjectured, from the account of a stratagem of Peisistratus, that there was a communication from the Aglaurium to the platform of the citadel. After Peisistratus had seized the citadel, his next object was to disarm the Athenians. With this view he summoned the Athenians in the Anaceium, which was to the west of the Aglaurium: While he was addressing them, they laid down their arms, which were seized by the partizans of Peisistratus and conveyed into the Aglaurium, apparently with the view of being carried into the citadel itself. (Polyaen. 1.21.) Now this conjecture has been confirmed by the discovery of an ancient flight of stairs near the Erechtheium, leading into the cavern, and from thence passing downwards through a deep cleft in the rock, nearly parallel in its direction to the outer wall, and opening out in the face of the cliff a little below the foundation. [See above, p. 268a.] It would therefore appear that this cave, the smaller of the two above mentioned, was the Agraulium, the access to which from the Acropolis was close to the northern portico of the Erechtheium, which led into the sanctuary of Pandrosus, the only one of the three daughters of Cecrops who remained faithful to her trust. Leake conjectures that the Aglaurium, which is never described as a temple, but only as a sanctuary or sacred enclosure, was used in a more extended signification to comprehend both caves, one being more especially sacred to Aglaurus and the other to her sister Herse. The position of the Aglaurium, as near the cave of Pan, and in front of the Erechtheium and Parthenon (πρὸ Παλλάδος ναῶν), is clearly shown in the following passage of Euripides (Eur. Ion 506, seq.), where the μυχώδεις μακραί probably refer to the flight of steps:-- “ Πανὸς θακήματα καὶ
παραυλίζουσα πέτρα
μυχώδεσι μακραῖς,
λ̔́να χοροὺς ρτείβουσι ποδοῖν
Ἀγραύλου κόραι τρίγονοι
στάδια χλοερὰ πρὸ Παλλάδος ναῶν.

Wordsworth (p. 87) conjectures, with some probability, that it may have been by the same secret communication that the Persians got into the Acropolis.

According to one tradition Aglaurus precipitated herself from the Acropolis, as a sacrifice, to save her country; and it was probably on this account that the Athenian ephebi, on receiving their first suit of armour, were accustomed to take an oath in the Aglaurium, that they would defend their country to the last. (Dem. de Fals. Leg. p. 438; Pollux, 8.105; Philostr. Vit. Apoll. 4.21; Hermann, Griech. Staatsalterth. § 123. n. 7.)

9. The Theseium.

The Theseium (Ξησεῖον), or temple of Theseus, is the best preserved of all the monuments of ancient Athens. It is situated on a height in the NW. of the city, north of the Areiopagus, and near the gymnasium of Ptolemy. (Paus. 1.17.2; Plut. Thes. 36.) It was at the same time a temple and a tomb, having been built to receive the bones of Theseus, which Cimon had brought from Scyros to Athens in B.C. 469. (Thuc. 1.98; Plut. Cim. 8, Thes. 36; Diod. 4.62; Paus. l.c.) The temple appears to have been commenced in the same year, and, allowing five years for its completion, was probably finished about 465. It is, therefore, about thirty years older than the Parthenon. It possessed the privilege of an asylum, in which runaway slaves, in particular, were accustomed to take refuge. (Diod. l.c.; Plut. Thes. l.c., de Exil. 17; Hesych., Etym. M. s. v. Ξησεῖον.) Its sacred enclosure was so large as to serve sometimes as a place of military assembly. (Thuc. 6.61.)

The Temple of Theseus was built of Pentelic marble, and stands upon an artificial foundation formed of large quadrangular blocks of limestone. Its architecture is of the Doric order. It is a Peripteral Hexastyle, that is, it is surrounded with columns, and has six at each front. There are thirteen columns on each of the flanks, including those at the angles, which are also reckoned among those of the front, so that the number of columns surrounding the temple is thirty-four. The stylobate is two feet four inches high, and has only two steps, instead of three, a fact which Stuart accounts for by the fact of the temple being an heroum. The total length of the temple on the upper step of the stylobate is 104 feet, and its total breadth 45 feet, or more accurately 104.23 and 45.011 respectively. (Penrose.) Its height from the bottom of the stylobate to the summit of the pediment is 33 1/2 feet. It consists of a cella having a pronaos or prodomus to the east, and an opisthodomus or posticum to the west. The pronaos and opisthodomus were each separated from the ambulatory of the peristyle by two columns, and perhaps a railing, which may have united the two columns with one another, and with the antae at the end of the prolongation of the walls of the cella. The cella is 40 feet in length, the pronaos, including the eastern portico, 33 feet, and the opisthodomus, including the western portico, 27 feet. The ambulatory at the sides of the temple is six feet in breadth. The columns, both of the peristyle and in the two vestibules, are three feet four inches in diameter at the base, and nearly nineteen feet high.

The eastern front of the temple was the principal one. This is shown not only by the depth of the pronaos, but still more decisively by the sculptures. The ten metopes of the eastern front, with the four adjoining on either side, are exclusively adorned with sculpture, all the other metopes having been plain. It was not till the erection of the Parthenon that sculpture was employed to decorate the entire [p. 1.288]frieze of the peristyle. Tile two pediments of the porticoes were also filled with sculptures. On the eastern pediment there are traces in the marble of metallic fastenings for statues : it is usually stated that the western pediment did not contain any figures, but Penrose, in his recent examination of the temple, has discovered clear indications of the positions which the sculptures occupied. Besides the pediments, and the above-mentioned metopes, the only other parts of the temple adorned with sculpture are the friezes over the columns and antae of the pronaos and opisthodomus. These friezes stretch across the whole breadth of the cellar and the ambulatory, and are 38 feet in length.


Although the temple itself is nearly perfect, the sculptures have sustained great injury. The figures in the two pediments have entirely disappeared; and the metopes and the frieze have been greatly mutilated. Enough, however, remains to show that these sculptures belong to the highest style of Grecian art. The relief is bold and salient, approaching to the proportions of the entire statue, the figures in some instances appearing to be only slightly attached to the table of the marble. The sculptures, both of the metopes and of the friezes, were painted, and still preserve remains of the colours. Leake observes that “vestiges of brazen and golden-coloured arms, of a blue sky, and of blue, green, and red drapery, are still very apparent. A painted foliage and maeander is seen on the interior cornice of the peristyle, and painted stars in the lacunaria.” In the British Museum there are casts of the greater portion of the friezes, and of three of the metopes from the northern side, being the first, second, and fourth, commencing from the north-east angle. They were made at Athens, by direction of the Earl of Elgin, from the sculptures which then existed upon the temple, where they still remain.

The subjects of the sculptures are the exploits of Theseus and of Hercules; for the Theseium was not only the tomb and heroum of Theseus, but also a monument in honour of his friend and companion Hercules. The intimate friendship of these two heroes is well known, and is illustrated by the statement of an ancient writer that, when Theseus had been delivered by Hercules from the chains of Aidoneus, king of the Molossi, he conducted Hercules to Athens, that he might be purified from the murder of his children: that Theseus then not only shared his property with Hercules, but resigned to the latter all the sacred places which had been given him by the Athenians, changing all the Theseia of Attica, except four, into Heracleia. (Philochorus, ap. Plut. Thes. 35.) The Hercules Furens of Euripides seems, like the Theseium, to have been intended to celebrate unitedly the deeds and glory of the two friends. Hence this tragedy has been called a Temple of Theseus in verse. Euripides probably referred to this Theseium, among other buildings of Athens, in the passage beginning (Herc. Fur. 1323):-- “ἕπου ἅμ᾽ ἡμῖν πρὸς πόλισμα Παλλάδος.
ἐκεῖ χέρας σὰς ἁγνίσας μιάσματος,
δόμους τὲ δώσω, χρημάτων τ᾽ ἐμῶν μέρος.

In the sculptural decorations of his temple Theseus yielded to his friend the most conspicuous place. Hence the ten metopes in front of the temple are occupied by the Labours of Hercules, while those on the two flanks, only eight in all, relate to the exploits of Theseus. The frieze over the opisthodomus represents the combat of the Centaurs and Lapithae, in which Theseus took part; but the subject of the frieze of the pronaos cannot be made out, in consequence of the mutilated condition of the sculptures. Stuart (vol. iii. p. 9) supposes that it represents part of the battle of Marathon, and especially the phantom of Theseus rushing upon the Persians; Müller (Denkmäler der alten Kunst, p. 11), that the subject is the war of Theseus with the Pallantidae, a race of gigantic strength, who are said to have contended with Theseus for the throne of Athens; Leake (p. 504), that it represented the battle of the giants, who were subdued mainly by the help of Hercules. Leake urges, with great probability, that as the ten metopes in front of the building were devoted to the exploits of Hercules, and eight, less conspicuously situated, to those of Theseus; and that as the frieze over the opisthodomus referred to one of the most celebrated exploits of Theseus, so it may be presumed that the corresponding panel of the pronaos related to some of the exploits of Hercules.

The Theseium was for many centuries a Christian church dedicated to St. George. “When it was converted into a Christian church, the two interior columns of the pronaos were removed to make room for the altar and its semicircular enclosure, customary in Greek churches. A large door was at the same time pierced in the wall, which separates the cella from the opisthodomus; when Athens was taken by the Turks, who were in the habit of riding into the churches on horseback, this door was closed, and a small one was made in the southern wall. The roof of the cella is entirely modern, and the greater part of the ancient beams and lacunaria of the peristyle are wanting. In other respects the temple is complete.” (Leake.) The building is now converted into the national Museum of Athens, and has been restored as nearly as possible to its original condition. The vaulted roof of the cella has been replaced by one in accordance with the original design of the building. [p. 1.289]

The three interior walls of the Theseium were decorated with paintings by Micon. (Paus. l.c.) The stucco upon which they were painted is still apparent, and shows that each painting covered the entire wall from the roof to two feet nine inches short of the pavement. (Leake, p. 512.)

The identification of the church of St. George with the temple of Theseus has always been considered one of the most certain points in Athenian topography; but it has been attacked by Ross, in a pamphlet written in modern Greek (τὸ Ξησεῖον καὶ ναὸς τοῦ Ἄρεως, Athen. 1838), in which it is maintained that the building usually called the Theseium is in reality the temple of Ares, mentioned by Pausanias (1.8.4). Ross argues, 1. That the temple of Theseus is described by Plutarch as situated in the centre of the city (ἐν μέοῃ τῇ πόλει, Thes. 36), whereas the existing temple is near the western extremity of the ancient city. 2. That it appears, from the testimony of Cyriacus of Ancona, who travelled in Greece in 1436, that at that time the edifice bore the name of the temple of Ares. 3. That there have been discovered immediately below the building a row of marble statues or Caryatids, representing human figures, with serpents' tails for their lower extremities, which Ross considers to be the eponymous heroes of the Attic tribes mentioned by Pausanias as in the immediate neighbourhood of the temple of Ares. 4. The fact of the sculptures of the temple representing the exploits of Theseus and Hercules Ross does not consider sufficient to prove that it was the Theseium; since the exploits of these two heroes are exactly the subjects which the Athenians would be likely to select as the most appropriate decorations of the temple of the god of war.

An abstract of Ross's arguments is given by Mure (vol. ii. p. 316) and Westermann (in Jahn's Jahrbücher, vol. xli. p. 242); but as his hypothesis has been generally rejected by scholars, it is unnecessary to enter into any refutation of it. (Comp. Pittakis, in Athen. Archäol. Zeitung, 1838, Febr.and March; Gerhard, Hall. Lit. Zeit. 1839, No. 159; Ulrichs, in Annal. d. Inst. Archäol. 1842, p. 74, foll.; Curtius, Archäol. Zeitschrift, 1843, No. 6.)


10. The Olympieium.

The site of the Olympieium (Ὀλυμπιεῖον), or Temple of Zeus Olympius, is indicated by sixteen gigantic Corinthian columns of white marble, to the south-east of the Acropolis, and near the right bank of the Ilissus. This temple not only exceeded in magnitude all other temples in Athens, but was the greatest ever dedicated to the supreme deity of the Greeks, and one of the four most renowned examples of architecture in marble, the other three being the temples of Ephesus, Branchidae, and Eleusis. (Vitruv. vii. Praef.) It was commenced by Peisistratus, and finished by Hadrian, after many suspensions and interruptions, the work occupying a period of nearly 700 years. Hence it is called by Philostratus “a great struggle with time” (χρόνου μέγα ἀγώνισμα, Vit. Soph. 1.25.3). The original founder of the temple is said to have been Deucalion. (Paus. 1.18.8.) The erection of the temple was entrusted by Peisistratus to four architects, whose names are recorded by Vitruvius (l.c.), and oy whom it appears to have been planned in all its extent and magnitude. The work was continued by the sons of Peisistratus; but after their expulsion from Athens it remained untouched for nearly 400 years. It is not impossible, as Mure has remarked, that prejudice against the Peisistratidae may have operated against the prosecution of their unfinished monuments, although no allusion occurs in any writer to such a motive for the suspension of the work.

The Peisistratidae must have made considerable progress in the work, since ancient writers speak of it in its unfinished state in terms of the highest admiration. It also appears from these accounts to have suffered little from the Persian invasion, probably from its only consisting at that time, of solid masses of masonry, which the Persians would hardly have taken the trouble of demolishing. Dicaearchus, who visited Athens prior to any renewal of the work, describes it, “though half finished, as exciting [p. 1.290]astonishment by the design of the building, and which would have been most admirable if it had been finished.” (Ὀλύμπιον, ἡμιτελὲς μὲν, καταπλήξιν δ᾽ ἔχον τὴν τῆς οἰκοδομίας ὑπογραφήν: γενόμενον δ᾽ ἂν βέλτιστον, εἴπερ συνετελέσθη, p. 140, ed. Fuhr.) Aristotle (Polit. v. 1) mentions it as one of the colossal undertakings of despotic governments, placing it in the same category as the pyramids of Egypt; and Livy (41.20) speaks of it as “Jovis Olympii templum Athenis, unum in terris inchoatum pro magnitudine dei,” where “unum” is used because it was a greater work than any other temple of the god. (Comp. Strab. ix. p.396; Plut. Sol. 32; Lucian, Icaro-Menip. 24.) About B.C. 174 Antiochus Epiphanes commenced the completion of the temple. He employed a Roman architect of the name of Cossutius to proceed with it. Cossutius chose the Corinthian order, which was adhered to in the subsequent prosecution of the work. (Vitruv. l.c.; Athen. 5.194a.; Vell. 1.10.) Upon the death of Antiochus in B.C. 164 the work was interrupted; and about 80 years afterwards some of its columns were transported to Rome by Sulla for the use of the Capitoline temple at Rome. (Plin. Nat. 36.5. s. 6.) The work was not resumed till the reign of Augustus, when a society of princes, allies or dependents of the Roman empire; undertook to complete the building at their joint expense. (Suet. Aug. 60.) But the honour of its final completion was reserved for Hadrian, who dedicated the temple, and set up the statue of the god within the cella. (Paus. 1.18.6, seq.; Spartian. Hadr. 13; D. C. 69.16.)

Pausanias says that the whole exterior inclosure was about four stadia in circumference, and that it was full of statues of Hadrian, dedicated by the Grecian cities. Of these statues many of the pedestals have been found, with inscriptions upon them. (Böckh, Inscr. No. 321--346.) From the existing remains of the temple, we can ascertain its size and general form. According to the measurements of Mr. Penrose, it was 354 feet (more exactly 354.225) in length, and 171 feet (171.16) in breadth. “It consisted of a cella, surrounded by a peristyle, which had 10 columns in front, and 20 on the sides. The peristyle, being double in the sides, and having a triple range at either end, besides three columns between antae at each end of the cella, consisted altogether of 120 columns.” (Leake.) Of these columns 16 are now standing, with their architraves, 13 at the south-eastern angle, and the remaining three, which are of the interior row of the southern side, not far from the south-western angle. These are the largest columns of marble now standing in Europe, being six and a half feet in diameter, and above sixty feet high.

A recent traveller remarks, that the desolation of the spot on which they stand adds much to the effect of their tall majestic forms, and that scarcely any ruin is more calculated to excite stronger emotions of combined admiration and awe. It is difficult to conceive where the enormous masses have disappeared of which this temple was built. Its destruction probably commenced at an early period, and supplied from time to time building materials to the inhabitants of Athens during the middle ages.

Under the court of the temple there are some very large and deep vaults, which Forchhammer considers to be a portion of a large cistern, alluded to by Pausanias as the chasm into which the waters flowed after the flood of Deucalion. From this cistern there is a conduit running in the direction of the fountain of Callirrhoë, which he supposes to have been partly supplied with water by this means. (Leake, p. 513; Mure, vol. ii. p. 79; Forchhammer, p. 367.)


[p. 1.291]

11. The Horologium of Andronicus Cyrrhestes.

This building, vulgarly called the “Temple of the Winds,” from the figures of the winds upon its faces, is situated north of the Acropolis, and is still extant. Its date is uncertain, but the style of the sculpture and architecture is thought to belong to the period after Alexander the Great. Müller supposes it to have been erected about B.C. 100; and its date must be prior to the middle of the first century B.C. since it is mentioned by Varro (R. R. 3.5.17). It served both as the weathercock and public clock of Athens. It is an octagonal tower,


with its eight sides facing respectively the direction of the eight winds into which the Athenian compass was divided. The directions of the several sides were indicated by the figures and names of the eight winds, which were sculptured on the frieze of the entablature. On the summit of the building there stood originally a bronze figure of a Triton, holding a wand in his right hand, and turning on a pivot, so as to serve for a weathercock. (Vitr. 1.6.4.) This monument is called a horologium by Varro (l.c.). It formed a measure of time in two ways. On each of its eight sides, beneath the figures of the winds, lines are still visible, which, with the gnomons that stood out above them, formed a series of sun-dials. In the centre of the interior of the building there was a clepsydra, or water-clock, the remains of which are still visible. On the south side of the building there was a cistern, which was supplied with water from the spring called Clepsydra, near the cave of Pan. Leake states that a portion of the aqueduct existed not long since, and formed part of a modern conduit for the conveyance of water to a neighbouring mosque, for the service of the Turks in their ablutions. It may not he unnecessary to remind the reader that Clepsydra was the common term for a water-clock, and was not so called from the fountain‘ of the same name, which supplied it with water: the similarity of the names is accidental. The reason of the fountain near the cave of Pan being called Clepsydra has been given above. [See p. 286b.]

The height of the building from its foundation is 44 feet. On the NE. and NW. sides are distyle Corinthian porticoes, giving access to the interior; and to the south wall is affixed a sort of turret, forming three-quarters of a circle, to contain the cistern which supplied water to the clepsydra.

12. The Choregic Monument of Lysicrates.

This elegant monument, vulgarly called the “Lantern of Demosthenes,” was dedicated by Lysicrates in B.C. 335--4, as we learn from an, inscription on the architrave, which records that “Lysicrates, son of Lysitheides of Cicynna, led. the chorus, when the boys of the tribe: of Acamantis conquered, when Theon played the flute, when Lysiades wrote the piece, and when Evaenetus was archon.” It was the practice of the victorious choragi to dedicate to Dionysus the tripods which they had gained in the contests in the theatre. Some of these tripods were placed upon small temples, which were erected either in the precincts of the theatre, or in a street which ran along the eastern side of the Acropolis, from the Prytaneium to the Lenaeum, or sacred enclosure of Dionysus near


[p. 1.292]

the theatre, and which was hence called the “Street of Tripods.” (Paus. 1.20.1.)

Of these temples only two now remain; the monument of Thrasyllus, situated above the theatre, of which we have already spoken [see p. 285]; and the monument of Lysicrates, which stood in the street itself. It appears that this street was formed entirely by a series of such monuments; and from the inscriptions engraved on the architraves that the dramatic chronicles or didascaliae were mainly compiled. The monument of Lysicrates is of the Corinthian order. It is a small circular building on a square basement, of white marble, and covered by a cupola, supported by six Corinthian columns. Its whole height was 34 feet, of which the square basis was 14 feet, the body of the building to the summit of the columns 12 feet, and the entablature, together with the cupola and apex, 8 feet. There was no access to the interior, which was only 6 feet in diameter. The frieze, of which there are casts in the British Museum, represents the destruction of the Tyrrhenian pirates by Dionysus and his attendants.


13. The Fountain of Callirrhoë, or Enneacrunus.

The fountain of Callirrhoë (Καλλιρρόη), or Enneacrunus (Ἐννεάκρουνος), was situated in the SE. of the city. It was, as has been already remarked, the only source of good drinkable water in Athens. (Paus. 1.14.1.) It was employed in all the more important services of religion, and by women prior to their nuptials. (Thuc. 2.15.) We learn from Thucydides (l.c.) that it was originally named Callirrhoë, when the natural sources were open to view, but that it was afterwards named Enneacrunus, from having been fitted with nine pipes (κροῦνοι) by the Peisistratidae. Hence it appears that the natural sources were covered by some kind of building, and that the water was conducted through nine pipes. Enneacrunus appears to have been the name of the fountain, in the architectural sense of the term; but the spring or source continued to be called Callirrhoë, and is the name which it still bears. (Compare Stat. Theb. 12.629: “Et quos Callirrhoë novies errantibus undis Implicat.” ) It has been supposed from a fragment of Cratinus (ap. Schol. ad Aristoph. Equit. 530; Suidas, s. v. δωδεκάκρουνος) that the fountain was also called Dodecacrunus; but it is more probable, as Leake has remarked, that the poet amplified for the sake of comic effect. The spring flows from the foot of a broad ridge of rocks, which crosses the bed of the Ilissus, and over which the river forms a water-fall when it is full. But there is generally no water in this part of the bed of the Ilissus; and it is certain that the fountain was a separate vein of water, and was not supplied from the Ilissus. The waters of the fountain were made to pass through small pipes, pierced in the face of the rock, through which they descended into the pool below., Of these orifices seven are still visible. The fountain also received a supply of water from the cistern in the Olympieium, which has been already mentioned. [See above, p. 290b.] The pool, which receives the waters of the fountain, “would be more copious, but for a canal which commences near it and is carried below the bed of the Ilissus to Vunó, a small village a mile from the city, on the road to Peiraeeus; where the water is received into a cistern, supplies a fountain on the high road, and waters gardens. The canal exactly resembles those which were in use among the Greeks before the introduction of Roman aqueducts, being a channel about three feet square, cut in the solid rock. It is probably, therefore, an ancient work.” (Leake, p. 170; Forchhammer, p. 317; Mure, vol. ii. p. 85.)

14. The Panathenaic Stadium.

The Panathenaic Stadium (τὸ στάδιον τὸ Παναθηναϊκόν was situated on the south side of the Ilissus, and is described by Pausanias as “a hill rising above the Ilissus, of a semicircular form in its upper part, and extending from thence in a double right line to the bank of the river.” (Paus. 1.19.6.) Leake observes, that “it is at once recognized by its existing remains, consisting of two parallel heights, partly natural, and partly composed of large masses of rough substruction, which rise at a small distance from the left bank of the Ilissus, in a direction at right angles to the course of that stream, and which are connected at the further end by a third height, more indebted to art for its composition, and which formed the semicircular extremity essential to a stadium.” It is usually stated that this Stadium was constructed by Lycurgus, about B.C. 350 ; but it appears from the passage of Plutarch (Vit. X. Orat. p. 841), on which this supposition rests, that this spot must have been used previously for the gymnic contests of the Panathenaic games, since it is said that Lycurgus completed the Panathenaic stadium, by constructing a podium (κρηπίς) or low wall, and levelling the bed (χαράδρα) of the arena. The spectators, however, continued to sit on the turf for nearly five centuries afterwards, till at length the slopes were covered by Herodes Atticus with the seats of Pentelic marble, which called forth the admiration of Pausanias. (Philostr. Vit. Soph. 2.1.5.) These seats have disappeared, and it is now only a long hollow, grown over with grass. Leake conjectures that it was capable of accommodating 40,000 persons on the marble seats, and as many more on the slopes of the hills above them on extraordinary occasions.

Philostratus states that a temple of Tyche or Fortune stood on one side of the Stadium : and as there are considerable remains of rough masonry on the summit of the western hill, this is supposed to have been the site of the temple. The tomb of Herodes, who was buried near the Stadium, may have occupied the summit of the opposite hill. Opposite the Stadium was a bridge across the Ilissus, of which the foundations still exist. (Leake, p. 195.) [p. 1.293]

15. Arch of Hadrian.

This Arch, which is still extant, is opposite the north-western angle of the Olympieium, and formed an entrance to the peribolus of the temple. It is a paltry structure; and the style is indeed so unworthy of the real enlargement of taste which Hadrian is acknowledged to have displayed in the fine arts, that Mure conjectures with much probability that it may have been a work erected in his honour by the Athenian municipality, or by some other class of admirers or flatterers, rather than by himself. “This arch, now deprived of the Corinthian columns which adorned it, and covered at the base with three feet of accumulated soil, consisted when complete of an


archway 20 feet wide, between piers above 15 feet square, decorated with a column and a pilaster on each side of the arch, and the whole presenting an exactly similar appearance on either face. Above the centre of the arch stood an upper order surmounted by a pediment, and consisting on either front of a niche between semi-columns; a thin partition separating the niches from each other at the back. Two columns between a pilaster flanked this structure at either end, and stood immediately above the larger Corinthian columns of the lower order. The height of the lower order to the summit of the cornice was about 33 feet, that of the upper to the summit of the pediment about 23.” (Leake, p. 199.) The inscriptions upon either side of the frieze above the centre of the arch, describe it as dividing “Athens, the ancient city of Theseus” from the “City of Hadrian.” On the north-western side:

αἵδ᾽ εἰς Ἀθῆναι Θησέως πρὶν πόλις.

On the south-eastern side:

αἵδ᾽ εἰς Ἀδριανοῦ κοὐχὶ Θησέως πόλις.

These lines are an imitation of an inscription said to have been engraved by Theseus upon corresponding sides of a boundary column on the isthmus of Corinth (Plut. Thes. 25; Strab. iii. p.171):

Τάδ̓ οὐχὶ Πελοπόννησος ἀλλ᾽ Ἰωνία.

Τάδ̓ ἐστὶ Πελοπόννησος οὐκ Ἰωνία.
(Comp. Böckh, Inscr. No. 520.)

We know that a quarter of Athens was called Hadrianopolis in honour of Hadrian (Spartian. Hadrian. 20); and the above-mentioned inscription proves that this name was given to the quarter on the southern side of the arch, in which stood the mighty temple of Zeus Olympius, completed by this emperor.

16. The Aqueduct of Hadrian.

The position and remains of this aqueduct have been already described. [See p. 264b.]

17. The Agora.

Before the publication of Forchhammer's work, it was usually supposed there were two market-places at Athens, one to the west and the other to the north of the Acropolis, the former being called the Old Agora, and the latter the New or Eretrian Agora. This error, which has led to such serious mistakes in Athenian topography, appears to have been first started by Meursius, and has been adopted by subsequent writers on the subject, including even Leake and Müller. Forchhammer, however, has now clearly established that there was only one Agora at Athens, which was situated west of the Acropolis; and that there is no proof at all for the existence of the New Agora, which was placed by preceding writers directly north of the Acropolis in the midst of the modern town of Athens.

The general position of the Agora, vulgarly called the Old Agora, cannot admit of dispute; though it is almost impossible to determine its exact boundaries. The Agora formed a part of the Cerameicus. It is important to recollect this, since Pausanias, in his description of the Cerameicus (i. cc. 3--17). gives likewise a description of the Agora, but without mentioning the latter by name. It cannot, however, be doubted that he is actually giving an account of the Agora, inasmuch as the statues of Lycurgus, Demosthenes, Harmodius and Aristogeiton, which he mentions as being in the Cerameicus, are expressly stated by other authorities to have been in the Agora. The statue of Lycurgus is placed in the Agora by a Psephisma, quoted by Plutarch (Vit. X. Orat. p. 852); though the same writer, in his life of Lycurgus (Ibid. p. 384), says that it stood in the Cerameicus. So, also, the statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton are described by Arrian (Arr. Anab. 3.16), as being in the Cerameicus, but are placed in the Agora by Aristotle (Aristot. Rh. 1.9), Lucian (Parasit. 48), and Aristophanes (ἀγοράσω τ᾽ ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις ἑξῆς Ἀριστογείτονι, Lysistr. 633.) On the east the Agora extended as far as the ascent to the Propylaea. This is evident from the position of the statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, which stood on an elevated situation, near the temple of Nike, which, as we have already seen, was immediately in front of the left wing of the Propylaea. (κεῖνται ἐν Κεραμεικῷ αἱ εἰκόνες, ἄνιμεν ἐς πόλιν [i. e. the Acropolis] καταντικρὺ τοῦ Μητρῴου, Arrian, Arr. Anab. 3.16.) The extent of the Agora towards the east is also proved by the position of the temple of Aphrodite Pandemus, which was at the foot of the Propylaea (Paus. 1.22.3; πέτραν παρ᾽ αὐτὴν Παλλάδος, Eur. Hipp. 30), but which is also expressly said to have been in the Agora. (Apollod. ap. Harpocrat. s. v. Πάνδημος [p. 1.294]Ἀφροδίτη.) On the west the Agora appears to have extended as far as the Pnyx. Thus, we find in Aristophanes, that Dicaeopolis, who had secured his seat in the Pnyx at the first dawn of day, looks down upon the Agora beneath him, where the logistae are chasing the people with their vermilion coloured rope (Aristoph. Ach. 21, seq. with Schol.) For the same reason, when Philip had taken Elateia, the retail dealers were driven from their stalls in the market, and their booths burnt, that the people might assemble more quickly in the Pnyx. (Dem. de Cor. p. 284, quoted by Müller.) It, therefore, appears that the Agora was situated in the valley between the Acropolis, the Areiopagus, the Pnyx, and the Museium, being bounded by the Acropolis on the east, by the Pnyx on the west, by the Areiopagus on the north, and by the Museium on the south. This is the site assigned to it by Müller and Forchhammer; but Ross and Ulrichs place it north of the ravine between the Areiopagus and the Acropolis, and between these hills and the hill on which the Theseium stands. (Zeitschrift fur die Alterthumsswissenschaft, p. 22, 1844.) Some account of the buildings in the Agora will be given in the description of the route of Pausanias through the city.

The existence of a second Agora at Athens has been so generally admitted, that the arguments in favour of this supposition require a little examination. Leake supposed the new Agora to have been formed in the last century B.C., and conjectures that the ostensible reason of the change was the defilement of the old Agora by the massacre which occurred in the Cerameicus, when Athens was taken by Sulla, B.C. 86. Müller, however, assigns to the new Agora a much earlier date, and supposes that it was one of the markets of Athens in the time of Aristophanes and Demosthenes, since both these writers mention the statue of Hermes Agoraeus, which he places near the gate of the new Agora.

The arguments for the existence of the new Agora to the north of the Acropolis may be thus stated:--1. Apollodorus speaks of the ancient Agora ( ἀρχαία ἀγορὰ), thereby implying that there was a second and more recent one. (Πάνδημον Ἀθήνησιν κληθῆναι τὴν ἀμφιδρυθεῖσαν περὶ τὴν ἀρχαίαν ἀγορὰν, διὰ τὸ ἐνταῦθα πάντα τὸν δῆμον συνάγεσθαι τὸ παλαιὸν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, ἃς ἐκάλουν ἀγοράς, Apollod. ap. Harpocrat. s. v. Πάνδημος Ἀφροδίτη.) 2. It is maintained from a passage in Strabo that this new Agora bore the name of the Eretrian Agora. The words of Strabo are: “Eretria, some say, was colonised from Macistus in Triphylia under Eretrieus, others, from the Athenian Eretria, which is now Agora.” (Ἐρέτριαν δ᾽ οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ Μακίστον τῆς Τριφυλίας ἀποικισθῆναι φασιν ὑπ᾽ Ἐρετριέως, οἱ δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀθήνησιν Ἐρετρίας, νῦν ἐστιν ἀγορά, Strab. x. p.447.) 3. Pausanias, as we have already seen, gives a description of the buildings in the old Agora, but without once mentioning the latter by name. It is not till the 17th chapter that he speaks of the Agora, just before he describes the gymnasium of Ptolemy and the temple of Theseus. Hence it is inferred that the old Agora had ceased to be used as a market-place in the time of Pausanias; and that the Agora mentioned by him is the so-called new Agora. 4. The chief argument, however, for the existence of the new Agora is the Doric portico, which is situated at a distance of about 250 yards opposite the northern extremity of the rocks of the Acropolis. It is maintained that the style of architecture of this building, and still more the inscriptions upon it, prove it to have been the Propylaeum or gateway of the Agora; and it is thought to be the same as the gate, which Pausanias describes as close to the statue of Hermes Agoraens, and in the neighbourhood of the Stoa Poecile (1.15.1).

In reply to these arguments it may be observed: 1. Apollodorus did not speak of an ancient marketplace in contradistinction from a new market-place; he derives the name of ἀγορά from the assembling (συνάγεσθαι) of the people, and calls the place where they assembled the ancient Agora, in order to distinguish it from their later place of assembly on the Pnyx. 2. The passage of Strabo is too obscure to be of any authority in such a controversy. It is doubtful whether the Agora mentioned in this passage is the market, or a market, and whether it was in Athens or in Attica. Supposing that Strabo meant the Agora at Athens, there is no reason why we should not understand him to allude to the so-called old Agora. 3. It is quite an accidental circumstance that Pausanias uses the word Agora for the first time at the beginning of the 17th chapter. He had previously described the Agora under the name of Cerameicus, of which it was a part, and he would probably not have used the name Agora at all, had not the mention of the Hermes Agoraeus accidentally given occasion to it. 4. It is most probable that the above-mentioned Doric portico was not the gate of any market, but the portal of a building dedicated to Athena Archegetis, and erected by donations from Julius Caesar and Augustus. This portico was quite different from the gate mentioned by Pausanias as standing close to the statue of Hermes Agoraeus; for this gate and statue stood in the middle of the so-called old Agora. A few words must be said on each of these points.

First, as to the Hermes Agoraeus, it is expressly stated by an ancient authority that this statue stood in the middle of the Agora. (ἐν μέσῃ ἀγορᾷ ἵδρυται Ἑρμοῦ ἀγοραίου ἄγαλμα, Schol. ad Aristoph. Equit. 297.) Near this statue, and consequently in the middle of the Agora, stood a gate (πύλη), which appears from the account of Pausanias (1.15.1) to have been a kind of triumphal arch erected to commemorate the victory of the Athenians over the troops of Cassander. This archway probably stood upon the same spot as the Πυλίς mentioned by Demosthenes (περὶ τὸν Ἑρμῆν τὸν πρὸς τῇ πυλίδι, c. Euerg. et Mnesib. p. 1146), and may even have been the same building as the latter, to which the trophy was subsequently added. The Hermes Agoraeus, which was made of bronze, was one of the most celebrated statues in Athens, partly from its position, and partly from the beauty of its workmanship. (Lucian, Jup. Trag. 33.) This “Hermes near the gate” (Ἐρμῆς πρὸς τῇ πυλίδι, or παρὰ τὸν πυλῶνα) was frequently used to designate the part of the Cerameicus (Agora) in which it stood. (Dem. l.c.; Harpocrat., Suid., Phot. Lex. Ἑρμῆς πρὸς τῇ πυλίδι.) It was erected by the nine archons at the time when the fortifications of the Peiraeeus were commenced, as was shown by the inscription upon it, preserved by Philochorus (ap. Harpocrat. s. v. Πρὸς τῇ πυλίδι Ἑρμῆς). According to Philochorus (l.c.) it was called Πυλῶν Ἀττικός: for the latter word, which is evidently corrupt, Leake proposes to read Ἀστικός, and Forchhammer Ἀγορᾶιος. Sometimes the “Gate” alone was employed to indicate this locality: thus Isaeus speaks of a lodging-house “in the Cerameicus near [p. 1.295]the Gate” (τῆς ἐν Κεραμεικῷ ρυνοικίας, τῆς παρὰ τὴν πυλίδα, de Philoct. hered. p. 58, Steph.).

Secondly, with regard to the Doric portico in the so-called new Agora, it is evident from its style of architecture that it was erected after the time of Cassander, to say nothing of an earlier period. It consists at present of four Doric columns 4 feet 4 inches in diameter at the base, and 26 feet high, including the capital, the columns supporting a pediment surmounted by a large acroterium in the centre, and by a much smaller one at either end. If there were any doubt respecting the comparatively late date of this building, it would be removed by two inscriptions upon it, of which the one on the architrave is a dedication to Athena Archegetis by the people, and records that the building had been erected by means of donations from C. Julius Caesar and Augustus (Böckh, Inscr. 477); while the second on the central acroterium shows that a statue of Lucius Caesar, the grandson and adopted son of Augustus, had been placed on the summit of the pediment. (Böckh, No. 312.) It would seem to follow from the first of these inscriptions that these columns with their architrave belonged to a small temple of Athena Archegetis, and there would probably have never been any question about the matter, if it had not been for two other inscriptions, which seem to support the idea of its occupying part of the site of the so-called new Agora. One of these inscriptions is upon the pedestal of a statue of Julia, which was erected in the name of the Areiopagus, the Senate of Six Hundred, and the people, at the cost of Dionysius of Marathon, who was at the time Agoranomus with Q. Naevius Rufus of Melite. (Böckh, No. 313.) The statue itself has disappeared, but the basis was found near the portico. We do not, however, know that the statue originally stood where the pedestal has been found; and even if it did, it is absurd to conclude from this inscription that it stood in the Agora, simply because Dionysius, who defrayed the expenses of raising the monument, indulged in the pardonable vanity of indicating the time of its erection by the Agoranomia of himself and of Rufus. The other inscription is an edict of


the emperor Hadrian, respecting the sale of oils and the duties to be paid upon them (Böckh, No. 355); but the large stone upon which the inscription has been cut, and which now appears to form a part of the ancient portico, did not belong to it originally, and was placed in its present position in order to form the corner of a house, which was built close to the portico.

There is, therefore, no reason whatsoever for believing this portico to have been a gateway, to say nothing of a gate of the Agora; and, consequently, we may dismiss as quite untenable the supposition of two market-places at Athens. Of the buildings in the Agora an account is given below in the route of Pausanias through the city.

18. The Cerameicus.

There were two districts of this name, called respectively the Outer and the Inner Cerameicus, both belonging to the demus αἱ Κεραμεῖς, the former being outside, and the latter within, the city walls. (εἶσι δυὸ Κεραμεικοὶ μὲν ἔξω τείχους, δ᾽ ἐντός, Suid. Hesych. sub voce Κεραμεικός; Schol. ad Aristoph. Eq. 969.) Of the Outer Cerameicus we shall speak in our account of the suburbs of the city. Through the principal part of the Inner Cerameicus there ran a wide street, bordered by colonnades, which led from the Dipylum, also called the Ceramic gate, through the Agora between the Areiopagus and the Acropolis on one side, and the hill of Nymphs and the Pnyx on the other. (Himer. Sophist. Or. iii. p. 446, Wernsdorf; Liv.31.24; Plut. Sull. 14; comp. οἱ Κεραμῇς ἐν ταῖσι πύλαις, Aristoph. Frogs 1125.) We have already seen that the Agora formed part of the Cerameicus. After passing through the former, the street was continued, though probably under another name, as far as the fountain of Callirhoë. For a further account of this street, see pp. 297, a, 299, a.

B. First Part of the Route of Pausanias through the City. From the Peiraic Gate to the Cerameicus. (Paus. 1.2.)

There can be little doubt that Pausanias entered the city by the Peiraic gate, which, as we have already seen, stood between the hills of Pnyx and Museium. [See p. 263.] The first object which he mentioned in entering the city was the Pompeium (Πομπεῖον), a building containing the things necessary for the processions, some of which the Athenians celebrate every year, and others at longer intervals. Leake and Müller suppose that Pausanias alludes to the Panathenaea; but Forchhammer considers it more probable that he referred to the Eleusinian festival, for reasons which are stated below. In this building were kept vases of gold and silver, called Πομπεῖα, used in the processions. (Philochor. ap. Harpocrat. s. v. Πομπεῖα; Dem. c. Androt. p. 615; Plut. Alc. 13; Andoc. c. Alcib. p. 126.) The building must have been one of considerable size, since not only did it contain paintings and statues, among which was a brazen statue of Socrates by Lysippus (D. L. 2.43), a picture of Isocrates (Plut. Vit. X. Orat. p. 839), and some portraits by Craterus (Plin. Nat. 35.11. s. 40); but we read of corn and flour being deposited here, and measured before the proper officers, to be sold at a lower price to the people. (Dem. c. Phorm. p. 918.) The Pompeium was probably chosen for this purpose as being the most suitable place near the road to the Peiraeeus.

The street from the Peiraic gate to the Cerameicus [p. 1.296]passed between the hills of Pnyx and Museium. The whole of this hilly district formed the quarter called Melite, which was a demus of Attica. Pausanias says, that close to the Pompeium was a temple of Demeter, containing statues of Demeter, Core (Proserpine), and Iacchus holding a torch; and as Hercules is said to have been initiated in Melite into the Lesser Eleusinian mysteries (Schol. ad Aristoph. Ran. 504), we may infer that the above-mentioned temple is the one in which the initiation took place. It was probably for this reason that a temple was built to Hercules in Melite, in which at the time of the plague there was dedicated the celebrated statue of Hercules Alexicacus, the work of Ageladas. (Schol. ad Aristoph. l.c.; Tzetz. Chil. 8.191.) This temple is not mentioned by Pausanias, probably because it lay at a little distance to the right of the street.

This street appears to have been one of considerable length. After describing the Pompeium, the temple of Demeter, and a group representing Poseidon on horseback hurling his trident at the giant Polybotes, he proceeds to say: “From the gate to the Cerameicus extend colonnades (στοαί), before which are brazen images of illustrious men and women. The one of the two colonnades ( ἑτέρα τῶν στοῶν) contains sanctuaries of the gods, a gymnasium of Hermes, and the house of Polytion, wherein some of the noblest Athenians are said to have imitated the Eleusinian mysteries. In my time the house was consecrated to Dionysus. This Dionysus they call Melpomenus, for a similar reason that Apollo is called Musagetes. Here are statues of Athena Paeonia, of Zeus, of Mnemosyne, of the Muses, and of Apollo, a dedication and work of Eubulides. Here also is the daemon Acratus, one of the companions of Dionysus, whose face only is seen projecting from the wall. After the sacred enclosure (τέμενος) of Dionysus there is a building containing images of clay, which represent Amphictyon, king of the Athenians, entertaining Dionysus and other gods. Here also is Pegasus of Eleutherae, who introduced Dionysus among the Athenians.”

It would appear that the στοαί, of which Pausanias speaks in this passage, were a continuous series of colonnades or cloisters, supported by pillars and open to the street, such as are common in many continental towns, and of which we had a specimen a few years ago in part of Regent Street in London. Under them were the entrances to the private houses and sanctuaries. That Pausanias was speaking of a continuous series of colonnades, on either side of the street, is evident from the words ἑτέρα τῶν στοῶν. Unfortunately Pausanias does not mention the name of this street. In sneaking of the house of Polytion, Pausanias evidently alludes to Alcibiades and his companions; but it may be remarked that an accusation against Alcibiades speaks of the house of Alcibiades as the place where the profanation took place, though it mentions Polytion as one of the accomplices. (Plut. Alc. 22.)

C. Second Part of the Route of Pausanias.--From the Stoa Basileius in the Agora to the Temple of Eucleia beyond the Ilissus. (Paus. 1.3-14.)

In entering the Cerameicus from the street leading between the hills of Pnyx and the Museium, Pausanias turned to the right, and stood before the Stoa Basileius, or Royal Colonnade, in which tile Archon Basileus held his court. It is evident from what has been said previously, that Pausanias had now entered the Agora, though he does not mention the name of the latter; and the buildings which he now describes were all situated in the Agora, or its immediate neighbourhood. Upon the roof of the Stoa Basileius were statues of Theseus throwing Sciron into the sea, and of Hemera (Aurora) carrying away Cephalus: hence it has been inferred that there was a temple of Hemera under or by the side of this Stoa. It appears to have faced the east, so that the statues of Hemera and Cephalus would witness the first dawn of day. Near the portico there were statues of Conon, Timotheus, Evagoras, and Zeus Eleutherius. Behind the latter, says Pausanias, was a stoa, containing paintings of the gods, of Theseus, Democracy, and the People, and of the battle of Mantineia. These paintings were by Euphranor, and were much celebrated. (Plut. de Glor. Ath. 2; Plin. Nat. 35.11. s. 40; V. Max. 8.12.) Pausanias does not mention the name of this stoa, but we know from other authorities, and from his description of the paintings, that it was the Stoa Eleutherius. In front of it stood the statue of Zeus Eleutherius, as Pausanias describes. This stoa probably stood alongside of the Stoa Basileius. (Plat. Theag. init.; Xen. Oeconom. 7 § 1 ; Harpocrat. Hesych. sub voce βασίλειος Στοά; Eustath. ad Odyss. 1.395.) Near the Stoa Basileius was the Temple of Apollo Patrous, the same as the Pythian Apollo, but worshipped at Athens as a guardian deity under the name of Patrous (τὸν Ἀπόλλω τὸν Πύθιον, ὃς Πατρῷός ἐστι τῇ πόλει, Dem. de Cor. p. 274; Aristid. Or. Panath. i. p. 112, Jebb; Harpocrat. s. v.)

Pausanias next mentions “a Temple of the Mother of the Gods (the Metroon, Μητρῷον), whose statue was made by Pheidias, and near it the Bouleuterium (βουλευτήριον), or Council House of the Five Hundred.” He gives no indication of the position of these buildings relatively to those previously mentioned; but as we know that the statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, which stood higher up, near the ascent to the Acropolis, were over against the Metroum (καταντικρὺ τοῦ Μητρῴου, Arrian, Arr. Anab. 3.16), we may, perhaps, conclude that they stood on the side of the Agora at right angles to the side occupied by the Stoa Basileius and Stoa Eleutherius. In the Metroum the public records were kept. It is also said by Aeschines to have been near the Bouleuterium (Aesch. c. Ctesiph. p. 576, Reiske; Dem. de Fals. Leg. p, 381, c. Aristog. i. p. 799; Lycurg. c. Leocrat. p. 184; Harpocrat. s. v. Μητρῷον; Suidas, s. v. Μητραγύρτης.) In the Bouleuterium were sanctuaries of Zeus Boulaeus and Athena Boulaea, and an altar of Hestia Boulaea. Suppliants placed themselves under the protection of these deities, and oaths were taken upon their altars. (Xen. Hell. 2.3. 52 ; Andoc. de Mys. p. 22, de Redit. p. 82, Reiske; Antiph. de Fals. Leg. p. 227; Diod. 14.4.)

The Tholus, which Pausanias places near the Bouleuterion (1.5.1), probably stood immediately above the latter. It was a circular building, and was covered with a dome built of stone. (Timaeus, Lex. Plat., Hesych., Suid., Phot. s. v. Ξόλος; Bekker, Anecd. Gr. i. p. 264.) It contained some small silver images of the gods, and was the place where the Prytanes took their common meals, and offered their sacrifices. (Pollux, 8.155; Dem. de Fals. Leg. [p. 1.297]p. 419.) After the Tholus there followed, higher up (ἀνωτέρω), the Statues of the Eponymi, or heroes, from whom were derived the names of the Attic tribes; and after the latter (μετὰ δὲ τὰς εἰκόνας τῶν ἐπωνύμων, 1.8.2) the statues of Amphiaraus, and of Eirene (Peace), bearing Plutus as her son. In the same place (ἐνταῦθα) stood also statues of Lycurgus, son of Lycrophron, of Callias, who made peace with Artaxerxes, and of Demosthenes, the latter, according to Plutarch (Vit. X. Orat. p. 847), being near the altar of the 12 gods. Pausanias, however, says, that near this statue was the Temple of Ares, in which were two statues of Aphrodite, one of Ares by Alcamenes, an Athena by Locrus of Paros, and an Enyo by the sons of Praxiteles: around the temple there stood Hercules, Theseus, and Apollo, and likewise statues of Calades and Pindar. Not far from these (οὐ πόρρω) stood the statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, of which we have already spoken. The Altar of the Twelve Gods, which Pausanias has omitted to mention, stood near this spot in the Agora. (Hdt. 6.108; Thuc. 6.54; Xen. Hipparch. 3; Lycurg. c. Leo??r. p. 198, Reiske; Plut. Nic. 13, Vit. X. Orat. l.c.) Close to this altar was an inclosure, called Περισχοίνισμα, where the votes for ostracism were taken. (Plut. Vit. X. Orat. l.c.) In the same neighbourhood was the Temple of Aphrodite Pandemus, placed by Apollodorus in the Agora (ap. Harpocrat. s. v. Πάνδημος Ἀφροδίτη), but which is not mentioned by Pausanias (1.22.1-3) till he returns from the Theatre to the Propylaea. It must, there-fore, have stood above the statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, more to the east.

Upon reaching the temple of Aphrodite Pandemus, which he would afterwards approach by another route. Pausanias retraced his steps, and went along the wide street, which, as a continuation of the Cerameicus, led to the Ilissus. In this street there appear to have been only private houses; and the first monument which he mentions after leaving the statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, was “the theatre, called the Odeium, before the entrance to which are statues of Egyptian kings” (1.8.6). Then follows a long historical digression, and it is not till he arrives at the 14th chapter, that he resumes his topographical description, by saying: “Upon entering the Athenian Odeium there is, among other things, a statue of Dionysus, worthy of inspection. Near it is a fountain called Enneacrunus (i. e. of Nine Pipes), since it was so constructed by Peisistratus.”

The Odeium must, therefore, have stood at no great distance from the Ilissus, to the SE. of the Olympieium, since the site of the Enneacrunus, or fountain of Callirhoë, is well known. [See p. 292.] This Odeium must not be confounded with the Odeium of Pericles, of which Pausanias afterwards speaks, and which was situated at the foot of the Acropolis, and near the great Dionysiac theatre. As neither of these buildings bore any distinguishing epithet, it is not always easy to determine which of the two is meant, when the ancient writers speak of the Odeium. It will assist, however, in distinguishing them, to recollect that the Odeium of Pericles must have been a building of comparatively small size, since it was covered all over with a pointed roof, in imitation of the tent of Xerxes (Plut. Per. 13); while the Odeium on the Ilissus appears to have been an open place surrounded with rows of seats, and of considerable size. Hence, the latter is called a τόπος, a term which could hardly have been applied to a building like the Odeium of Pericles. (Hesych. sub voce ᾠδεῖον; Schol. ad Aristoph. Vesp. 1148.) This Odeium is said by Hesychius (l.c.) to have been the place in which the rhapsodists and citharodists contended before the erection of the theatre; and, as we know that the theatre was commenced as early as B.C. 500, it must have been built earlier than the Odeium of Pericles. Upon the erection of the latter, the earlier Odeium ceased to be used for its original purpose; and was employed especially as a public granary, where, in times of scarcity, corn was sold to the citizens at a fixed price. Here, also, the court sat for trying the cases, called δίκαι σίτου, in order to recover the interest of a woman's dowry after divorce: this interest was called σῖτος (alimony or maintenance), because it was the income out of which the woman had to be maintained. It is probable, from the name of the suit, and from the place in which it was tried, that in earlier times the defendant was called upon to pay the damages in kind, that is, in corn or some other sort of provisions; though it was soon found more convenient to commute this for a money payment. (Dem. c. Phorm. p. 918, c. Neaer. p. 1362; Lys. c. Agor. p. 717, ed. Reiske; Suid. s. v. ᾠδεῖον; Harpocrat. s. v. δῖτος.) Xenophon relates, that the Thirty Tyrants summoned within the Odeium all the hoplites (3000) on the catalogus, and the cavalry; that half of the Lacedaemonian garrison took up their quarters within it; and that when the Thirty marched to Eleusis, the cavalry passed the night in the Odeium with their horses. (Xen. hell. 2.4. § § 9, 10, 24.) It is evident that this could not have been the roofed building under the Acropolis. If we suppose the Odeium on the Ilissus to have been surrounded with a wall, like the Colosseum, and other Roman amphitheatres, it would have been a convenient place of defence in case of an unexpected attack made by the inhabitants of the city.

After speaking of the Odeium and the fountain Enneacrunus, Pausanias proceeds: “Of the temples beyond the fountain, one is dedicated to Demeter and Core (Proserpine), in the other stands a statue of Triptolemus.” He then mentions several legends respecting Triptolemus, in the midst of which he breaks off suddenly with these words: “From proceeding further in this narrative, and in the things relating to the Athenian temple, called Eleusinium, a vision in my sleep deterred me. But I will return to that of which it is lawful for all men to write. In front of the temple, in which is the statue of Triptolemus [it should be noticed, that Pausanias avoids, apparently on purpose, mentioning the name of the temple], stands a brazen ox, as led to sacrifice: here also is a sitting statue of Epimenides of Cnossus. Still further on is the Temple of Eucleia, a dedication from the spoils of the Medes, who occupied the district of Marathon.”

It will be seen from the preceding account that Pausanias makes no mention of the city walls, which he could hardly have passed over in silence if they had passed between the Odeium and the fountain of Enneacrunus, as Leake and others suppose. That he has omitted to speak of his crossing the Ilissus, which he must have done in order to reach the temple of Demeter, is not surprising, when we recollect that the bed of the Ilissus is in this part of its course almost always dry, and only filled for a few hours after heavy rain. Moreover, as there can [p. 1.298]be little doubt that this district was covered with houses, it is probable that the dry bed of the river was walled in, and may thus have escaped the notice of Pausanias.

It is evident that the temple of Demeter and of Core, and the one with the statue of Triptolemus, stood near one another, and apparently a little above the fountain. Here there is still a small chapel, and in the neighbourhood foundations of walls. Whether the Eleusinium was either of these temples, or was situated in this district at all, cannot be in the least determined from the words of Pausanias. In the same neighbourhood was a small Ionic building, which, in the time of Stuart, formed a church, called that of Panaghía on the Rock (Παναγία στὴν πέτραν). It has now totally disappeared, and is only known from the drawings of Stuart. This beautiful little temple was “an amphiprostyle, 42 feet long, and 20 broad, on the upper step of the stylobate. There were four columns at either end, 1 foot 9 inches in diameter above the spreading base. Those at the eastern end stood before a pronaos of 10 feet in depth, leading by a door 7 feet wide into a σῆκος of 15 1/2 feet; the breadth of both 12 feet.” (Leake, p. 250.) Leake supposes that this is the temple of the statue of Triptolemus; but Forchhammer imagines it to have been that of Eucleia. If the latter conjecture is correct, we have in this temple a building erected immediately after the battle of Marathon.


D. Third Part of the Route of Pausanias.--From the Stoa Basileius in the Agora to the Prytaneium. (Paus. 1.14.6-18.3.)

After speaking of the temple of Eucleia beyond the Ilissus, Pausanias returns to the point from which he had commenced his description of the Cerameicus and the Agora. Having previously described the monuments in the Agora to his right, he now turns to the left, and gives an account of the buildings on the opposite side of the Agora. “Above the Cerameicus and the Stoa, called Basileius,” he continues, “is a temple of Hephaestus... Near it is a sanctuary of Aphrodite Urania (100.14). .... In approaching the Stoa, which is called Poecilé (Ποικίλη), from its pictures, is a bronze Hermes, surnamed Agoraeus, and near it a gate, upon which is a trophy of the Athenians, the victors in an equestrian combat of Pleistarchus, who had been entrusted with the command of the cavalry and foreign troops of his brother Cassander.” ( 15.1.) Then follows a description of the paintings in the Stoa Poecilé after which he proceeds: “Before the Stoa stand brazen statues, Solon, who drew up laws for the Athenians, and a little further Seleucus (c, 16.1). . . . In the Agora of the Athenians is an Altar of Pity (Ἐλέου βωμός), to whom the Athenians alone of Greeks give divine honours” (100.17 § 1).

It would appear that the three principal buildings, mentioned in this passage, the Temple of Hephaestus, the Sanctuary of Aphrodite Urania, and the Stoa Poecile, stood above one another, the last, at all events, having the hill of Pnyx behind it, as we shall see presently. Of the celebrated statue of Hermes Agoraeus, and of the gate beside it, we have already spoken. [See p. 294.] Near the temple of Hephaestus was the Eurysaceium, or heroum of Eurysaces, which Pausanias has not mentioned. (Harpocrat. s. v. Κολωνίτας.) Eurysaces was the son of Ajax. According to an Athenian tradition he and his brother Philaeus had given up Salamis to the Athenians, and had removed to Attica, Philaeus taking up his residence in Brauron, and Eurysaces in Melite. (Plut. Sol. 10.) It was in the latter district that the Eurysaceium was situated (Harpocrat. s. v. Εὐρυσάκειον), which proves that Melite must have extended as far as the side of the Agora next to the hill of Pnyx.

In the Agora, and close to the Eurysaceium and temple of Hephaestus, was the celebrated hill called Colonus, more usually Colonus Agoraeus, or Misthius (Κολωνὸς ἀγοραῖος, or μίσθιος), which, from its central position, was a place of hire for labourers. It received its surname from this circumstance, to distinguish it from the demus Colonus beyond the Academy. (Pollux, 7.133; Harpocrat. s. v. Κολωνίτας; Argum. iii. ad Soph. Oed. Colon. ed. Hermann.) This hill was a projecting spur of the hill of Pnyx. Here Meton appears to have lived, as may be inferred from a passage in Aristophanes (Aristoph. Birds 997), in which Meton says, “Meton am I, whom Hellas and Colonus know” (ὅστις εἴμ̓ ἐγώ; Μέτων, ὃν ὀ̂δεν Ἑλλὰς χὠ Κολωνός). This is confirmed by the statement that the house of Meton was close to the Stoa Poecile. (Aelian, Ael. VH 13.12.) On the hill Colonus Meton placed some “astronomical dedication” (ἀνάθημά τι ἀστρολογικόν), the nature of which is not mentioned; and near it upon the wall of that part of the Pnyx where the assemblies of the people were held, he set up a ἡλιοτρόπιον, which indicated the length of the solar year. (ἡλιοτρόπιον ἐν τῇ νῦν οὔσῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ, πρὸς τῷ τείχει τῷ ὲν τῇ Πνυκί, Schol. ad Aristoph. Vesp. 997; Suid. s. v. Μέτων.) The Scholiast also says, that the Colonus Agoraeus was behind the Macra Stoa ( Μακρὰ Στοὰ); but as no other writer mentions a Stoa of this name in the Asty, it is probable that the Scholiast meant the Stoa Basileius.

The Stoa Poecile was the Stoa from which the Stoic philosophers obtained their name. (D. L. 7.5; Lucian, Demon. 14.) It was originally called Στοὰ Πεισιανάκτιος. (Plut. Cim. 4; Diog. Laert. l.c.; Suid. s. v. Στοά.) It had three walls covered with paintings; a middle wall with two large paintings, representing scenes from the mythical age, and one at each end, containing a painting of which the subject was taken from Athenian history. On the first wall was the battle of Oenoë in [p. 1.299]the Argeia, between the Athenians and Lacedaemonians. On the great central wall was a picture of the Athenians under Theseus fighting against the Amazons, and another representing an assembly of the Greek chiefs after the capture of Troy deliberating respecting the violation of Cassandra by Ajax. On the third wall was a painting of the battle of Marathon. These paintings were very celebrated. The combat of the Athenians and Amazons was the work of Micon. (Aristoph. Lys. 681; Arrian, Arr. Anab. 7.13.) The battle of Marathon Was painted by Polygnotus, Micon, and Pantaenus. (Plut. Cim. 4; D. L. 7.5; Plin. Nat. 35.8. s. 34; Aelian, de Nat. An. 7.38.)

After describing the Stoa Poecile, and mentioning the statues of Solon and Seleucus, and the Altar of Pity, Pausanias quits the Agora and goes up the street of the Cerameicus towards Dipylum. He passes between the Pnyx and the Areiopagus without mentioning either, since the lower parts of both were covered with houses. The first object which he mentions is the Gymnasium of Ptolemy, which he describes as not far from the Agora (τῆς ἀγορᾶς ἀπέχοντι οὐ πολύ), and named after its founder Ptolemy: it contained Hermae of stone, worthy of inspection, a bronze image of Ptolemy, and statues of Juba the Libyan, and of Chrysippus of Soli. He next describes the Temple of Theseus, which he places near the Gymnasium (πρὸς τῷ γυμνασίῳ, 17.2). The proximity of these two buildings is also noticed by Plutarch. (Θησεὺςκεῖται ἐν μέσῃ τῇ πόλει παρὰ τὸ νῦν γυμνάσιον, Thes. 36.) Of the temple of Theseus we have already spoken. [See p. 287.] At this spot Pausanias quitted the Cerameicus and turned to the right towards the east. If he had gone further on in the direction of Dipylum, he would at least have mentioned the Leocorium, or monument of the daughters of Leos, which stood near the Dipylum in the inner Cerameicus. (Thuc. 1.20, 2.57; Aelian, Ael. VH 12.28; Cic. de Nat. Deor. 3.1. 9; Strab. ix. p.396; Harpocrat. Hesych. sub voce Λεωκόριον.

It has been already mentioned that the Cerameicus was a long wide street, extending from Dipylum to the Agora, and continued under another name as far as the fountain of Callirhoë, and the temple with the statue of Triptolemus, which Forchhammer conjectures to be the same as the Pherephattium. This street, like the Corso of the Italian towns, appears to have been the grand promenade in Athens. The following passage from the speech of Demosthenes against Conon (p. 1258) gives a lively picture of the locality: “Not long afterwards,” says Ariston, “as I was taking my usual walk in the evening in the Agora along with Phanostratus the Cephisian, one of my companions, there comes up to us Ctesias the son of this defendant, drunk, at the Leocorium, near the house of Pythodorus. Upon seeing us he shouted out, and having said something to himself like a drunken man, so that we could not understand what he said, he went past us up to Melite (πρὸς Μελίτην ἄνω) In that place there were drinking (as we afterwards learnt) at the house of Pamphilus the fuller, this defendant Conon, a certain Theotimus, Archebiades, Spintharus the son of Eubulus, Theogenes the son of Andromenes, a number of persons whom Ctesias brought down into the Agora. It happened that we met these men as we were returning from the Pherephattium, and had in our walk again reached the Leocorium.” It is evident from this account that the house of Pamphilus was somewhere on the hill of the Nymphs; and that the Pherephattium was in any case to the south of the Leocorium, and apparently at the end of the promenade: hence it is identified by Forchhammer with the temple with the statue of Triptolemus.

After leaving the Theseium, Pausanias arrives at the Temple of the Dioscuri, frequently named the Anaceium, because the Dioscuri (Castor and Pollux) were called οἱ Ἄνακες, or Ἀνακοὶ, by the Athenians. (Plut. Thes. 33; Aelian, Ael. VH 4.5; Suid. Etym. M. s. v. Ἀνακοί; Harpocrat. s. v. Ἀνακεῖον, Πολύγνωτος.) He does not, however, mention either the distance of the Anaceium from the Theseium, or the direction which he took in proceeding thither. It is evident, however, that he turned to the east, as has been already remarked, since he adds in the next paragraph, that above the temple of the Dioscuri is the sacred enclosure of Aglaurus. The latter, as we know, was situated on the northern side of tile Acropolis, immediately under the Erechtheium [see p. 286]; and that the Anaceium was near the Aglaurium, appears from the tale of the stratagem of Peisistratus (Polyaen. 1.21), which has been already related. The proximity of the Anaceium and Aglaurium is also attested by Lucian. (Piscator. 42.) And since Pausanias mentions the Anaceium before the Aglaurium, we may place it north-west of the latter.

Near to the Aglaurium, says Pausanias, is the Prytaneium, where the laws of Solon were preserved. Hence the Prytaneium must have stood at the north-eastern corner of the Acropolis; a position which is confirmed by the narrative of Pausanias, that in proceeding from thence to the temple of Sarapis, he descended into the lower parts of the city (ἐς τὰ κάτω τῆς πόλεως), and also by the fact that the street of the Tripods, which led to the sacred enclosure of Dionysus near the theatre commenced at the Prytaneium. (Paus. 1.20.1.)

North of the Acropolis there were some other monuments. Of these two of the most celebrated are the portico of Athena Archegetis, erroneously called the Propylaeum of the new Agora [see p. 295], and the Horologium of Andronicus Cyrrhestes. Apparently north of these should be placed certain buildings erected by Hadrian, which Pausanias does not mention till he had spoken of the Olympieium, the greatest of the works of this emperor. After describing the Olympieium, Pausanias remarks (1.18.9): “Hadrian constructed other buildings for the Athenians, a temple of Hera and of Zeus Panhellenius, and a sanctuary common to all the gods (a Pantheon). The most conspicuous objects are 120 columns of Phrygian marble. The walls of the porticoes are made of the same material. In the same place are apartments (οἰκήματα) adorned with gilded roofs and alabaster stone, and with statues and paintings: books are deposited in them (or in this sanctuary). There is also a gymnasium named after Hadrian, in which there are 100 columns from the quarries of Libya.” The ancient remains north of the portico of Athena Archegetis are supposed to belong to a portion of these buildings. “The Corinthian colonnade, of which the southern extremity is about 70 yards to the north of the above-mentioned portico, was the decorated facade (with a gateway in the centre) of a quadrangular inclosure, which is traceable to the eastward of it. A tetrastyle propylaeum, formed of columns 3 feet in diameter and 29 feet high, similar to those before the wall, except that the latter are not fluted, projected [p. 1.300]22 feet before the gate of the inclosure, which was 376 feet long, and 252 broad; round the inside of it, at a distance of 23 feet from the wall, are vestiges of a colonnade. In the northern wall, which still exists, are the remains of one large quadrangular recess or apartment in the centre 34 feet in length, and of two semicircular recesses nearly equal to it in diameter. The church of Megáli Panaghía, which stands towards the eastern side of the inclosure, is formed of the remains of an ancient building, consisting on one side of a ruined arch, and on the other of an architrave supported by a pilaster, and three columns of the Doric order, 1 foot 9 inches in diameter, and of a somewhat declining period of art..... The general plan was evidently that of a quadrangle surrounded with porticoes, having one or more buildings in the centre: thus agreeing perfectly with that work of Hadrian which contained stoae, a colonnade of Phrygian marble, and a library..... The building near the centre of the quadrangle, which was converted into a church of the Panaghía, may have been the Pantheon.... Possibly also the temple of Hera and of Zeus Panhellenius stood in the centre of the inclosure.” (Leake, p. 258, seq.)

E. Fourth Part of the Route of Pausanias.--From the Prytaneium to the Stadium. (Paus. 1.18.4-19.)

Pausanias went straight from the Prytaneium to the Olympieium, between which buildings he notices these objects, the Temple of Sarapis, the place of meeting of Theseus and Peirithous, and the Temple of Eileithyia. After describing the Olympieium, Pausanias mentions the temples of Apollo Pythius, and of Apollo Delphinius. The Pythium (Πύθιον) was one of the most ancient sanctuaries in Athens. We know from Thucydides (2.15) that it was in the same quarter as the Olympieium, and from Strabo (ix, p. 404), that the sacred inclosures of the two temples were only separated by a wall, upon which was the altar of Zeus Astrapaeus. The Delphinium (Δελφίνιον) was apparently near the Pythium. It was also a temple of great antiquity, being said to have been founded by Aegeus. In its neighbourhood sat one of the courts for the trial of cases of homicide, called τὸ ἐπὶ Δελφινίῳ. (Plut. Thes. 12, 18; Pollux, 8.119; Paus. 1.28.10.)

Pausanias next proceeds to The Gardens (οἱ κῆποι), which must have been situated east of the above-mentioned temples, along the right bank of the Ilissus. In this locality was a temple of Aphrodite: the statue of this goddess, called “Aphrodite in the Gardens,” by Alcamenes, was one of the most celebrated pieces of statuary in all Athens. (Plin. Nat. 36.5. s. 4; Lucian, Imag. 4, 6.) Pliny (l.c.), misled by the name “Gardens,” places this statue outside the walls; but we have the express testimony of Pausanias in another passage (1.27.3) that it was in the city.

Pausanias then visits the Cynosarges and Lyceium, both of which were situated outside the walls, and are described below in the account of the suburbs of the city. From the Lyceium he returns to the city, and mentions the Altar of Boreas, who carried off Oreithyia from the banks of the Ilissus, and the Altar of the Ilissian Muses, both altars being upon the banks of the Ilissus. (Comp. Plat. Phaedr. 100.6; Hdt. 7.189.) The altar of Boreas is described by Plato (l.c.) as opposite the temple of Artemis Agrotera, which probably stands upon the site of the church of Stavroménos Petros. To the east of the altar of Boreas stood the altar of the Ilissian Muses. In 1676 Spon and Wheler observed, about fifty yards above the bridge of the Stadium, the foundations of a circular temple, which had, however, disappeared in the time of Stuart. This was probably the Temple of the Ilissian Muses, for though Pausanias only mentions an altar of these goddesses, there may have been also a temple.

On the other side of the Ilissus Pausanias entered the district Agrae or Agra, in which was the Temple of Artemis Agrotera, spoken of above. A part of this district was sacred to Demeter, since we know that the lesser Eleusinian mysteries were celebrated in Agrae, and were hence called τὰ ἐν Ἄγραις. (Steph. B. sub voce Ἄγρα; Plut. Demetr. 26.) Stephanus (l.c.) says that Agra was a spot before the city (πρὸ τῆς πόλεως), but this appears to be only a conclusion drawn from the name, which would seem to indicate that it was in the country, and may be classed together with the above-mentioned error of Pliny about the gardens. The Panathenaic Stadium was also in Agrae, after describing which [see p. 292], Pausanias retraces his steps to the Prytaneium. He has omitted to mention the hill Ardettus (Ἀρδηττός), situated above the Stadium, where the Dicasts were sworn. (Harpocrat., Hesych., Suid. s.v. Pollux, 8.122.) The high ground of Agrae appears to have been called Helicon in ancient times. (Cleidemus, ap. Bekker, Anecd. Graec. i. p. 326.)

F. Fifth Part of the Route of Pausanias.--From the Prytaneium to the Propylaea of the Acropolis. (Paus. 1.20-22.3.)

In this part of his route Pausanias went round the eastern and southern sides of the Acropolis. Starting again from the Prytaneium, he went down the Street of the Tripods, which led to the Lenaeum or sacred enclosure of Dionysus. The position of this street is marked by the existing Choragic Monument of Lysicrates [see p. 291], and by a number of small churches, which probably occupy the place of the tripod temples. The Lenaeum, which contained two temples of Dionysus, and which was close to the theatre, was situated in the district called Limnae. It was here that the Dionysiac festival, called Lenaea, was celebrated. (Thuc. 2.15; Dict. of Ant. p. 411b. 2nd ed.) The Lenaeum must be placed immediately below the theatre to the south. Immediately to the east of the theatre, and consequently at the north-eastern angle of the Acropolis, was the Odeium of Pericles. Its site is accurately determined by Vitruvius, who says (5.9), that it lay on the left hand to persons coming out of the theatre. This Odeium, which must be distinguished from the earlier building with this name near the Ilissus, was built by Pericles, and its roof is said to have been an imitation of the tent of Xerxes. (Plut. Per. 13.) It was burnt during the siege of Athens by Sulla, B.C. 85, but was rebuilt by Ariobarzanes II., king of Cappadocia, who succeeded to the throne about B.C. 63. (Appian, B. Mithr. 38; Vitruv. l.c.; Böckh, No. 357; Dict. of Ant. pp. 822, 823, 2nd ed.) All traces of this building have disappeared.

On the western side of the theatre are some remains of a succession of arches, which Leake con. jectures may have belonged to a portico, built by Herodes Atticus, for the purpose of a covered communication [p. 1.301]between the theatre and the Odeium of Herodes. Perhaps they are the remains of the Porticus Eumenia, which appears from Vitruvius (l.c.) to have been close to the theatre. For an account of the theatre itself, see p. 284.

In proceeding from the theatre Pausanias first mentions the Tomb of Talos or Calos, below the steep rocks of the Acropolis, from which Daedalus is said to have hurled him down. Pausanias next comes to the Asclepieium or Temple of Asclepius, which stood immediately above the Odeium of Herodes Atticus. Its site is determined by the statement that it contained a fountain of water, celebrated as the fountain at which Ares slew Halirrhothius, the son of Poseidon. Pausanias makes no mention of the Odeium of Herodes, since this building was not erected when he wrote his account of Athens. [See p. 286.] Next to the Asclepieium Pausanias, in his ascent to the Acropolis, passed by the Temple of Themis, with the Tomb of Hippolytus in front of it, the Temple of Aphrodite Pandemus and Peitho, and the Temple of Ge Curotrophus and Demeter Chloe. At the temple of Aphrodite Pandemus, Pausanias was again close to the statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton. [See p. 297a.] The proximity of this temple to the tomb of Hippolytus is alluded to by Euripides (Eur. Hipp. 29, seq.). The temple of Ge and Demeter was probably situated beneath the temple of Nike Apteros. At the foot of the wall, supporting the platform of the latter temple, there are two doors, coeval with the wall, and conducting into a small grotto, which was probably the shrine of Ge and Demeter. It was situated on the right hand of the traveller, just before he commenced the direct ascent to the Propylaea; and from being placed within a wall, which formed one of the defences of the Acropolis, it is sometimes described as a part of the latter. (Soph. ad Oed. Col. 1600; Suid. s. v. Κουροτρόφος Γῆ.) The position of this temple is illustrated by a passage in the Lysistrata of Aristophanes (829), where, the Athenian women being in possession of the Acropolis, Lysistrata suddenly perceives a man at the temple of Demeter Chloë approaching the citadel: “

ἰοὺ, ἰοὺ, γυναῖκες . . . .
ἄνδῤ ἄνδῤ ὁρῶ προσιόντα . . . .

ποῦ δ᾽ ἐστὶν, ὅστίς ἐστί;

παρὰ τὸ τῆς Χλόης.

The Eleusinium, which Pausanias had mentioned (1.14.3) in the description of his second route [see p. 297b], Leake conjectures to have been the great cavern in the middle of the rocks at the eastern end of the Acropolis. The Eleusinium is said by Clemens of Alexandria (Protrept. p. 13, Sylburg), and Arnobius (adv. Gent. vi. p. 193, Maire) to have been below the Acropolis. The Eleusinium is also mentioned by Thucydides (2.15) and Xenophon (Hipparch. 3), but without any positive indication of its site.

G. Sixth Part of the Route of Pausanias.--The Acropolis, Areiopagus and Academy. (Paus. 1.22.4-30.)

The Acropolis has been already described. In descending from it Pausanias notices the cave of Pan and the Areiopagus [see pp. 286, 281], and the place near the Areiopagus, where the ship was kept, which was dragged through the city in the great Panathenaic festival, surmounted by the Peplus of Athena as a sail (1.29.1). He then proceeds through Dipylum to the outer Cerameicus and the Academy. The two latter are spoken of under the suburbs of the city.

H. Districts of the Asty.

It is remarked by Isocrates that the city was divided into κῶμαι and the country into δῆμοι ῾διελόμενοι τὴν μὲν πόλιν κατὰ κώμας, τὴν δὲ χώραν κατὰ δήμους, Areop. p. 149, ed. Steph.). In consequence of this remark, and of the frequent opposition between the πόλις and the δῆμοι, it was formerly maintained by many writers that none of the Attic demi were within the city. But since it has been proved beyond doubt that the contrary was the case, it has been supposed that the city demi were outside the walls when the demi were established by Cleisthenes, but were subsequently included within the walls upon the enlargement of the city by Themistocles. But even this hypothesis will not apply to all the demi, since Melite and Cydathenaeum, for example, as well as others, must have been included within the city at the time of Cleisthenes. A little consideration, however, will show the necessity of admitting the division of the city into the demi from the first institution of the latter by Cleisthenes. It is certain that every Athenian citizen was enrolled in some demus, and that the whole territory of Attica was distributed into a certain number of demi. Hence the city must have been formed by Cleisthenes into one or more demi; for otherwise the inhabitants of the city would have belonged to no demus, which we know to have been impossible. At the same time there is nothing surprising in the statement of Isocrates, since the demi within the walls of Athens were few, and had nothing to do with the organization of the city. For administrative purposes the city was divided into κῶμαι or wards, the inhabitants being called κωμῆται. (Comp. Aristoph. Cl. 966, Lysistr. 5; Hesych. sub voce Κῶμαι.

The following is a list of the city demi:

  • 1. Cerameicus (Κεραμεικός: Eth. Κεραμεῖς), divided into the Inner and the Outer Cerameicus. The Inner Cerameicus has been already described, and the Outer Cerameicus is spoken of below. [See p. 303.] The two districts formed only one demus, which belonged to the tribe Acamantis. Wordsworth maintains (p. 171) that the term Inner Cerameicus was used only by later writers, and that during the Peloponnesian war, and for many years afterwards, there was only one Cerameicus, namely, that outside the walls. But this opinion is refuted by the testimony of Antiphon, who spoke of the two Cerameici (ap. Harpocrat. s. v.), and of Phanodemus, who stated that the Leocorium was in the middle of the Cerameicus (ap. Harpocrat. s. v. Λεωκόριον).
  • 2. Melite (Μελίτη: Eth. Μελιτεῖς), was a demus of the tribe Cecropis, west of the Inner Cerameicus. The exact limits of this demus cannot be ascertained; but it appears to have given its name to the whole hilly district in the west of the Asty, comprising the hills of the Nymphs, of the Pnyx and of the Museium, and including within it the separate demi of Scambonidae and Collytus. Melite is said to have been named from a wife of Hercules. It was one of the most populous parts of the city, and contained several temples as well as houses of distinguished men. In Melite were the Hephaesteium, the Eury-saceium, the Colonus Agoraeus [respecting these three, see p. 298]; the temple of Hercules Alexicacus [see p. 296a]; the Melanippeium, in which [p. 1.302]Melanippus, the son of Theseus, was buried (Harpocrat. s. v. Μελανίππειον); the temple of Athena Aristobula, built by Themistocles near his own house (Plut. Them. 22); the house of Callias (Plat. Parmen. p. 126a.; Schol. ad Aristoph. Ran. 504); the house of Phocion, which still existed in Plutarch's, time (Plut. Phoc. 18); and a building, called the “House of the Melitians,” in which tragedies were rehearsed. (Hesych. Phot. Lex. s. v. Μελιτέων οἶκος.) This is, perhaps, the same theatre as the one in which Aesohines played the part of Oenomaus, and which is said to have been situated in Collytus (Harpocrat. s. v. Ἴσχανδρος; Anonym. Vit. Aesch.); since the district of Melite, as we have already observed, subsequently included the demus of Collytus. It is probable that this theatre is the one of which the remains of a great part of the semicircle are still visible, hewn out of the rock, on the western side of the hill of Pnyx. The Melitian Gate at the SW. corner of the city were so called, as leading to the district Melite. [See p. 263b.] Pliny (4.7. s. 11) speaks of an “oppidum Melite,” which is conjectured to have been the fortress of the Macedonians, erected on the hill Museium. [See p. 284a.]
    3. Scambonidae (Σκαμβων́δαι), a demus belonging to the tribe Leontis. In consequence of a passage of Pausanias (1.38.2). Müller placed this demus near Eleusis; but it is now admitted that it was one of the city demi. It was probably included within the district of Melite, and occupied the Hills of the Nymphs and of Pnyx. Its connexion with Melite is intimated by the legend, that Melite derived its name from Melite, a daughter of Myrmex, and the wife of Hercules; and that this Myrmex gave his name to a street in Scambonidae. (Harpocrat. s. v. Μελίτη; Hesych., s. v. Μύρμηκος ἀτραπός; comp. Aristoph. Thes. 100; and Phot Lex.) This street, however, the “Street of Ants,” did not derive its name from a hero, but from its being crooked and narrow, as we may suppose the streets to have been in this hilly district. Scambonidae, also, probably derived its name from the same circumstance (from σκαμβός, “crooked.” )
    4. Collytus (Κολλυτός, not Κολυττός: Eth. Κολλυτεῖς), a demus belonging to the tribe Aegeis, and probably, as we have already said, sometimes included under the general name of Melite. It appears from a passage of Strabo (i. p.65) that Collytus and Melite were adjacent, but that their boundaries were not accurately marked, a passage which both Leake and Wordsworth have erroneously supposed to mean that these places had precise boundaries. (It is evident, however, that Collytus and Melite are quoted as an example of μὴ ὄντων ἀκριβῶν ὅρων.) Wordsworth, moreover, remarks that it was the least respectable quarter in the whole of Athens: but we know, on the contrary, that it was a favourite place of residence. Hence Plutarch says (de Exsil. 6, p. 601), “neither do all Athenians inhabit Collytus, nor Corinthians Craneium, nor Spartans Pitane,” Craneium and Pitane being two favourite localities in Corinth and Sparta respectively. It is described by Himerius (ap. Phot. Cod.. 243, p. 375, Bekker), as a στενωπός (which does not mean a narrow street, but simply a street, comp. Diod. 12.10.; Hesych. sub voce), situated. in the centre of the city, and much valued, for its use of the market (ἀγορᾶς χρείᾳ τιμώμενος), by which words we, are probably to understand that it was conveniently situated for. the. use of the market. Forchhammer places Collytus between the hills of Pnyx and Museium, in which case the expression of its being in the centre of the city, must not be interpreted strictly. The same writer also supposes στενωπός not to signify a street, but the whole district between the Pnyx and the Museiumn, including the slopes of those hills. Leake thinks that Collytus bordered upon. Diomeia, and accordingly places it between Melite and Diomeia; but the authority to which he refers would point to an opposite conclusion, namely, that Collytus and Diomeia were situated on opposite sides of the city. We are told that Collytus was the father of Diomus, the favourite of Hercules; and that some of the Melitenses, under the guidance of Diomus, migrated from Melite, and settled in the spot called Diomeia, from their leader, where they celebrated the Metageitnia, in memory of their origin. (Plut. de Exsil. l.c.; Steph. B. sub voce Διόμεια; Hesych. sub voce Διομειεῖς.) This legend confirms the preceding account of Collytus being situated in Melite. We have already seen that there was a theatre in Collytus, in which Aeschines played the part of Oenomaus; and we are also told that he lived in this district 45 years. (Aesch. Ep. 5.) Collytus was also the residence of Timon, the misanthrope (Lucian, Timon, 7, 44), and was celebrated as the demus of Plato.
  • 5. Cydathenaeum (Κυδαθήναιον: Eth. Κυδαθηναιεῖς), a demus belonging to the tribe Pandionis. (Harp. Suid. Steph. Phot.) The name is apparently compounded of κῦδος “glory,” and Ἀθηναῖος, and is hence explained by Hesychius (s. v.) as. ἔνδοξος Ἀθηναῖος. It is, therefore, very probable, as Leake has suggested, that this demus occupied the Theseian city, that is to say, the Acropolis, and the parts adjacent to it on the south and south-east. (Leake, p. 443; Müller, Dor. vol. ii. p. 72, transl.)
  • 6. Diomeia (Διόμεια: Eth. Διομεῖς), a demus belonging to the tribe Aegeis, consisting, like Cerameicus, of an Outer and an Inner. Diomeia. The Inner Diomeia comprised the eastern part of city, and gave its name to one of the city-gates in this quarter. In the Outer Diomeia was situated the Cynosarges. (Steph., Suid. s. v. Διόμεια; Hesych. sub voce Διομεῖς; Steph., Hesych. sub voce Κυνόσαργες; Schol. ad Aristoph. Ran. 664; Plut. de Exsil. l.c.) The Outer Diomeia could not have extended far beyond the walls, since the demus Alopece was close to Cynosarges. and only eleven or twelve stadia from the walls of the city. (Hdt. 5.63; Aesch. c. Tim. p. 119, Reiske.)
  • 7. Coele (Κοίλη), a demus belonging to the tribe Hippothoontis. It lay partly within and partly without the city, in the valley between the Museium and the hills on the southern side of Ilissus. In this district, just outside the Melitian gate, were the sepulchres of Thucydides and Cimon. [For authorities, see p. 263.]
  • 8. Ceiriadae (Κειριάδαι), a demus belonging to the tribe Hippothoontis. (Harpocrat., Suid., Steph. B. sub voce Hesych. sub voce) The position of this demus is uncertain; but Sauppe brings forward many arguments to prove that it was within the city walls. In this district, and perhaps near the Metroum, was the Βάραθρον, into which criminals were cast. (For authorities, see Sauppe, pp. 17, 18.)
  • 9. Agrae (Ἄγραι), was situated south of the Ilissus, and in the SE. of the city. Respecting its site, see p. 300b. It does not appear to have been a separate demus, and was perhaps included in the demus of Agryle, which was situated south of it. [p. 1.303]
  • 10. Limnae (Λίμναι), was a district to the south of the Acropolis, in which the temple of Dionysus was situated. (Thuc. 2.15.) It was not a demus, as stated by the Scholiast on Callimachus (H. in Del. 172), who has mistaken the Limnae of Messenia for the Limnae of Athens.

Colonus, which we have spoken of as a hill in the city, is maintained by Sauppe to have been a separate demus; but see above, p. 298b.

The Euboean cities of Eretria and Histiaea were said by some to have been named from Attic demi (Strab. x. p.445); and from another passage of Strabo (x. p.447) it has been inferred that the socalled New Agora occupied the site of Eretria. [See p. 298b.] It is doubtful whether Eretria was situated in the city; and at all events it is not mentioned elsewhere, either by writers or inscriptions, as a demus.

Respecting the city demi the best account is given by Sauppe, De Demis Urbanis Athenarum, Weimar, 1846.


1. The Outer Cerameicus and the Academy.

The road to the Academy (Ἀκαδημία), which was distant six or eight stadia from the gate named Dipylum, ran through the Outer Cerameicus. (Liv. 31.24; Thuc. 6.57; Plat. Parm. 2; Plut. Sull. 14; Cic. de Fin. 5.1; Lucian, Scyth. 2.) It is called by Thucydides the most beautiful suburb of the city (ἐπλ̀ τοῦ καλλίστου προαστείου τῆς πόλεως, Thuc. 2.34). On each side of the road were the monuments of illustrious Athenians, especially of those who had fallen in battle; for the Outer Cerameicus was the place of burial for all persons who were honoured with a public funeral. Hence we read in Aristophanes (Aristoph. Birds 395):--
Κεραμεικὸς δέξεται νώ.
δημοσίᾳ γὰρ ἵνα ταφῶμεν.

Over each tomb was placed a pillar, inscribed with the names of the dead and of their demi. (Paus. 1.29.4; comp. Cic. de Leg. 2.2. 6) In this locality was found an interesting inscription, now in the British Museum, containing the names of those who had fallen at Potidaea, B.C. 432.

The Academy is said to have belonged originally to the hero Academus, and was afterwards converted into a gymnasium. It was surrounded with a wall by Hipparchus, and was adorned by Cimon with walks, groves, and fountains. (D. L. 3.7; Suid. s. v. Ἱππάρχου τειχίον; Plut. Cim. 13.) The beauty of the plane trees and olive plantations was particularly celebrated. (Plin. Nat. 12.1. s. 5.) Before the entrance were a statue and an altar of Love, and within the inclosure were a temple of Athena, and altars of the Muses, Prometheus, Hercules, &c. (Paus. 1.30.1.) It was from the altar of Prometheus that the race of the Lampadephoria commenced. The Academy was the place where Plato taught, who possessed a small estate in the neighbourhood, which was his usual place of residence. (Diog. Laert. l.c.; Aelian, Ael. VH 9.10.) His successors continued to teach in the same spot, and were hence called the Academic philosophers. It continued to be one of the sanctuaries of philosophy, and was spared by the enemy down to the time of Sulla, who, during the siege of Athens, caused its celebrated groves to be cut down, in order to obtain timber for the construction of his military machines. (Plut. Sull. 12; Appian, App. Mith. 30.) The Academy, however, was replanted, and continued to enjoy its ancient celebrity in the time of the emperor Julian. Near the temple of Athena in the Academy were the Moriae, or sacred olives, which were derived from the sacred olive in the Erechtheium. The latter, as we have already seen, was the first olive tree planted in Attica, and one of the Moriae was shown to Pausanias as the second. They were under the guardianship of Zeus Morius. (Comp. Suid. s. v. Μορίαι; Schol. ad Soph. Oed. Col. 730.) A little way beyond the Academy was the hill of Colonus, immortalised by the tragedy of Sophocles; and between the two places were the tomb of Plato and the tower of Timon. (Paus. 1.30. § § 3, 4.) The name of Akadhimia is still attached to this spot. “It is on the lowest level, where some water-courses from the ridges of Lycabettus are consumed in gardens and olive plantations. These waters still cause the spot to be one of the most advantageous situations near Athens for the growth of fruit and potherbs, and maintain a certain degree of verdure when all the surrounding plain is parched with the heat of summer.” (Leake, p. 195.)

2. Cynosarges (Κυνόσαργες

Cynosarges was a sanctuary of Hercules and a gymnasium, situated to the east of the city, not far from the gate Diomeia. It is said to have derived its name from a white dog, which carried off part of the victim, when sacrifices were first offered by Diomus to Hercules. (Paus. 1.19.3; Hdt. 5.63, 6.116; Plut. Them. 1; Harpocrat. s. v. Ἡράκλεια; Hesych. Suid. Steph. B. sub voce Κυνόσαργες.) Antisthenes, the founder of the Cynic school, taught in the Cynosarges. (D. L. 6.13.) It was surrounded by a grove, which was destroyed by Philip, together with the trees of the neighbouring Lyceium, when he encamped at this spot in his invasion of Attica in B.C. 200. (Liv. 31.24.) Since Cynosarges was near a rising ground (Isocr. Vit. X. Orat. p. 838), Leake places it at the foot of the south-eastern extremity of Mount Lycabettus, near the point where the arch of the aqueduct of Hadrian and Antoninus formerly stood. The name of this gymnasium, like that of the Academy, was also given to the surrounding buildings, which thus formed a suburb of the city. (Forchhammer, p. 368.)

3. Lyceium (Λύκειον

Lyceium, a gymnasium dedicated to Apollo Lyceius, and surrounded with lofty plane trees, was also situated to the east of the city, and a little to the south of the Cynosarges. It was the chief of the Athenian gymnasia, and was adorned by Peisistratus, Pericles, and Lycurgus. (Paus. 1.19.3; Xen. Hipp. 3 § 6; Hesych. Harpocrat. Suid. s. v. Λύκειον.) The Lyceium was the place in which Aristotle and his disciples taught, who were called Peripatetics, from their practice of walking in this gymnasium while delivering their lectures. (D. L. 5.5; Cic. Acad. Quaest. 1.4) In the neighbourhood of the Lyceium was a fountain of the hero Panops, near which was a small gate of the city, which must have stood between the gates Diocharis and Diomeia. (Plat. Lys. 1; Hesych. s. v Πάνωψ.

4. Lycabettus (Λυκαβηττός

Lycabettus was the name of the lofty insulated mountain overhanging the city on its north-eastern side, and now called the Hill of St. George, from the church of St. George on its summit. [See p. 255a.] This hill was identified by the ancient geographers with Anchesmus (Ἀγχεσμός), which is described by Pausanias (1.32. [p. 1.304] § 2) as a small mountain with a statue of Zeus Anchesmius. Pausanias is the only writer who mentions Anchesmus; but since all the other hills around Athens have names assigned to them, it was supposed that the hill of St. George must have been Anchesmus. But the same argument applies with still greater force to Lycabettus, which is frequently mentioned by the classical writers; and it is impossible to believe that so remarkable an object as the Hill of St. George could have remained without a name in the classical writers. Wordsworth was, we believe, the first writer who pointed out the identity of Lycabettus and the Hill of St. George; and his opinion has been adopted by Leake in the second edition of his Topography, by Forchhammer, and by all subsequent writers. The celebrity of Lycabettus, which is mentioned as one of the chief mountains of Attica, is in accordance with the position and appearance of the Hill of St. George. Strabo (x. p.454) classes Athens and its Lycabettus with Ithaca and its Neriton, Rhodes and its Atabyris, and Lacedaemon and its Taygetus. Aristophanes (Aristoph. Frogs 1057), in like manner, speaks of Lycabettus and Parnassus as synonymous with any celebrated mountains: “ἢν οὖν σὺ λέγῃς Λυκαβηττοὺς
καὶ Παρνασῶν ἡμῖν μεγέθη, τοῦτ̓ ἐστὶ τὸ χρηστὰ διδάσκειν.

Its proximity to the city is indicated by several passages. In the edition of the Clouds of Aristophanes, which is now lost, the Clouds were represented as vanishing near Lycabettus, when they were threatening to return in anger to Parnes, from which they had come. (Phot. Lex. s. v. Πάρνης.) Plato (Critias, p. 112a) speaks of the Pnyx and Lycabettus as the boundaries of Athens. According to an Attic legend, Athena, who had gone to Pallene, a demus to the north-eastward of Athens, in order to procure a mountain to serve as a bulwark in front of the Acropolis, was informed on her return by a crow of the birth of Erichthonius, whereupon she dropt Mount Lycabettus on the spot where it still stands. (Antig. Car. 12; for other passages from the ancient writers, see Wordsworth, p. 57, seq.; Leake, p. 204, seq.) Both Wordsworth and Leake suppose Anchesmus to be a later name of Lycabettus, since Pausanias does not mention the latter; but Kiepert gives the name of Anchesmus to one of the hills north of Lycabettus. [See Map, p. 256.]


Between four and five miles SW. of the Asty is the peninsula of Peiraeeus, consisting of two rocky heights divided from each other by a narrow isthmus, the eastern, or the one nearer the city, being the higher of the two. This peninsula contains three natural basins or harbours, a large one on the western side, now called Dráko (or Porto Leone), and two smaller ones on the eastern side, called respectively Stratiotikí (or Paschalimáni), and Fanári; the latter, which was nearer the city, being the smaller of the two. Hence Thucydides describes (1.93) Peiraeeus as χωρίον λιμένας ἔχον τρεῖς αὐτοφυεῖς.

We know that down to the time of the Persian wars the Athenians had only one harbour, named Phalerum; and that it was upon the advice of Themistocles that they fortified the Peiraeeus, and made use of the more spacious and convenient harbours in this peninsula. Pausanias says (1.1.2): “The Peiraeeus was a demus from early times, but was not used as a harbour before Themistocles administered the affairs of the Athenians Before that time their harbour was at Phalerum, at the spot where the sea is nearest to the city..... But Themistocles, when he held the government, perceiving that Peiraeeus was more conveniently situated for navigation, and that it possessed three ports instead of the one at Phalerum (λιμένας τρεῖς ἀνθ᾽ ἑνὸς ἔχειν τοῦ Φαληροῖ), made it into a receptacle of ships.” From this passage, compared with the words of Thucydides quoted above, it would seem a natural inference that the three ancient ports of Peiraeeus were those now called Dráko, Stratiotikí, and Fanári ; and that Phalerum had nothing to do with the peninsula of Peiraeeus, but was situated more to the east, where the sea-shore is nearest to Athens. But till within the last few years a very different situation has been assigned to the ancient harbours of Athens. Misled by a false interpretation of a passage of the Scholiast upon Aristophanes (Pac. 145), modern writers supposed that the large harbour of Peiraeeus (Dráko) was divided into three ports called respectively Cantharus (Κάνθαρος), the port for ships of war, Zea (Ζέα) for corn-ships, and Aphrodisium (Ἀφροδίσιον) for other merchantships; and that it was to those three ports that the words of Pausanias and Thucydides refer. It was further maintained that Stratiotiki was the ancient harbour of Munychia, and that Fanári, the more easterly of the two smaller harbours, was the ancient Phalerum. The true position of the Athenian ports was first pointed out by Ulrichs in a pamphlet published in modern Greek (οἱ λιμένες καὶ τὰ μακρὰ τείχη τῶν Ἀθν́νων, Athens, 1843), of the arguments of which an abstract is given by the author in the Zeitschrift für die Alterthumswissenschaft (for 1844, p. 17, seq.). Ulrichs rejects the division of the larger harbour into three parts, and maintains that it consisted only of two parts; the northern and by far the larger half being called Emporium (Ἐμπόριον), and appropriated to merchant vessels, while the southern bay upon the right hand, after entering the harbour, was named Cantharus, and was used by ships of war. Of the two smaller harbours he supposes Stratiotikí to be Zea, and Phanári Munychia. Phalerum he removes altogether from the Peiraic peninsula, and places it at the eastern corner of the great Phaleric bay, where the chapel of St. George now stands, and in the neighbourhood of the Τρεῖς Πύργοι, or the Three Towers. Ulrichs was led to these conclusions chiefly by the valuable inscriptions relating to the maritime affairs of Athens, which were discovered in 1834, near the entrance to the larger harbour, and which were published by Böckh, with a valuable commentary under the title of Urkunden über das Seewesen des attischen Staates, Berlin, 1834. Of the correctness of Ulrichs's views there can now be little doubt; the arguments in support of them are stated in the sequel.

A. Phalerum.

The rocky peninsula of Peiraeeus is said by the ancient writers to have been originally an island, which was gradually connected with the mainland by the accumulation of sand. (Strab. i. p.59; Plin. Nat. 3.85; Suid. s. v. ἔμβαρος.) The space thus filled up was known by the name of Halipedum (Ἁλίπεδον), and continued to be a marshy swamp, which rendered the Peiraeeus almost inaccessible in the winter time till the construction of the broad carriage [p. 1.305]

  • A. Harbour of Peiraeeus (Emporium), now Dráko or Porto Leone.
  • B. Harbour of Cantharus.
  • C. Harbour of Zea, now Stratiotikí.
  • D. Harbour of Munychia, now Fanári.
  • E. Munychia, the Acropolis of Peiraeeus.
  • 1. Alcimus.
  • 2. Ship-houses.
  • 3. Hoplotheca or Armentarium of Philo.
  • 4. Aphrodisium.
  • 5. Stoae.
  • 6. Cophos Limen.
  • 7. Eetionia.
  • 8. Ship-houses.
  • 9. Phreattys.
  • 10. Northern Long Wall.
  • 11. Southern Long Wall.
  • 12. Halae.
  • 13. Necropolis.
  • 14. Ruins, erroneously supposed to be those of the Peiraic Theatre.
  • 15. Temple of Zeus Soter.
  • 16. Hippodameian Agora.
  • 17. Theatre.

road (ἁμαξιτός), which was carried across it. (Harpocrat., Suid. s. v. ἁλίπεδον; Xen. Hell. 2.4. 30) Under these circumstances the only spot which the ancient Athenians could use as a harbour was the south-eastern corner of the Phaleric bay, now called, as already remarked, Τρεῖς Πύργοι, which is a round hill projecting into the sea. This was accordingly the site of Phalerum (Φάληρον, also Φαληρός: Eth. Φαληρεῖς), a demus belonging to the tribe Aeantis. This situation secured to the original inhabitants of Athens two advantages, which were not possessed by the harbours of the Peiraic peninsula: first, it was much nearer to the most ancient part of the city, which was built for the most part immediately south. of the Acropolis (Thuc. 2.15); and, secondly, it was accessible at every season of the year by a perfectly dry road.

The true position of Phalerum is indicated by many circumstances. It is never included by ancient writers within the walls of Peiraeeus and Munychia. Strabo, after describing Peiraeeus and Munychia, speaks of Phalerum as the next place in order along the shore (μετὰ τὸν Πειραιᾶ Φαληρεῖς δῆμος ἐν τῇ ἐφεξῆς παραλίᾳ, ix. p. 398). There is no spot at which Phalerum could have been situated before reaching Τρεῖς Πύργοι, since the intervening shore of the Phaleric gulf is marshy (τὸ Φαληρικόν, Plut. Vit. X. Orat. p. 844, Them. 12; Strab. ix. p.400; Schol. ad Aristoph. Av. 1693). The account which Herodotus gives (5.63) of the defeat of the Spartans, who had landed at Phalerum, by the Thessalian cavalry of the Peisistratidae, is in accordance with the open country which extends inland near the chapel of St. George, but would not be applicable to the Bay of Phanári, which is completely protected against the attacks of cavalry by the rugged mountain rising immediately behind it. Moreover, Ulrichs discovered on the road from Athens to St. George considerable substructions of an ancient wall, apparently the Phaleric Wall, which, as we have already seen, was five stadia shorter than the two Long Walls. [See p. 259b.]

That there was a town near St. George is evident from the remains of walls, columns, cisterns, and other ruins which Ulrichs found at this place; and we learn from another authority that there may still be seen under water the remains of an ancient mole, upon which a Turkish ship was wrecked during the war of independence in Greece. (Westermann, in Zeitschrift für die Alterthumswissenschaft, 1843, p. 1009.)

Cape Colias (Κωλίας), where the Persian ships were cast ashore after the battle of Salamis (Hdt. 8.96), and which Pausanias states to have been 20 stadia from Phalerum (1.1.5), used to be identified with Τρεῖς Πύργοι, but must now be placed SE. at the present Cape of St. Kosmas: near the latter are some ancient remains, which are probably [p. 1.306]those of the temple of Aphrodite Colias mentioned by Pausanias.

The port of Phalerum was little used after the foundation of Peiraeeus; but the place continued to exist down to the time of Pausanias. This writer mentions among its monuments temples of Demeter Zeus, and Athena Sciras, called by Plutarch (Plut. Thes. 17) a temple of Scirus; and altars of the Unknown Gods, of the Sons of Theseus, and of Phalerus. The sepulchre of Aristeides (Plut. Arist. 1) was at Phalerum. The Phaleric bay was celebrated for its fish. (For authorities, see Leake, p. 397.)

B. Peiraeeus and Munychia.

1. Division of Peiraeeus and Munychia.

Peiraeeus (Πειραιεύς: Eth. Πειραιεῖς) was a demus belonging to the tribe Hippothontis. It contained both the rocky heights of the peninsula, and was separated from the plain of Athens by the low ground called Halipedon, mentioned above. Munychia (Μουνυχία) was included in Peiraeeus, and did not form a separate demus. Of the site of Munychia there can no longer be any doubt since the investigations of Curtius (De Portubus Athenarum, Halis, 1842); Ulrichs also had independently assigned to it the same position as Curtius. Munychia was the Acropolis of Peiraeeus. It occupied the hill immediately above the most easterly of the two smaller harbours, that is, the one nearest to Athens. This hill is now called Καστέλλα. It is the highest point in the whole peninsula, rising 300 feet above the sea; and at its foot is the smallest of the three harbours. Of its military importance we shall speak presently. Leake had erroneously given the name of Munychia to a smaller height in the westerly half of the peninsula, that is, the part furthest from Athens, and had supposed the greater height above described to be the Acropolis of Phalerum.

2. Fortifications and Harbours.

The whole peninsula of Peiraeeus, including of course Munychia, was surrounded by Themistocles with a strong line of fortifications. The wall, which was 60 stadia in circumference (Thuc. 2.13), was intended to be impregnable, and was far stronger than that of the Asty. It was carried up only half the height which Themistocles had originally contemplated (Thuc. 1.93); and if Appian (App. Mith. 30) is correct in stating that its actual height was 40 cubits, or about 60 feet, a height which was always found sufficient, we perceive how vast was the project of Themistocles. “In respect to thickness, however, his ideas were exactly followed: two carts meeting one another brought stones, which were laid together right and left on the outer side of each, and thus formed two primary parallel walls, between which the interior space (of course at least as broad as the joint breadth of the two carts) was filled up, not with rubble, in the usual manner of the Greeks, but constructed, through the whole thickness, of squared stones, cramped together with metal. The result was a solid wall probably not less than 14 or 15 feet thick, since it was intended to carry so very unusual a height.” (Grote, vol. v. p. 335; comp. Thuc. 1.93.) The existing remains of the wall described by Leake confirm this account. The wall surrounded not only the whole peninsula, but also the small rocky promontory of Etioneia, from which it ran between the great harbour and the salt marsh called Halae. These fortifications were connected with those of the Asty by means of the Long Walls, which have been already described. [See p. 259, seq.] It is usually stated that the architect employed by Themistocles in his erection of these fortifications, and in the building of the town of Peiraeeus, was Hippodamus of Miletus; but C. F. Hermann has brought forward good reasons for believing that, though the fortifications of Peiraeeus were erected by Themistocles, it was formed into a regularly planned town by Pericles, who employed Hippodamus for this purpose. Hippodamus laid out the town with broad straight streets, crossing each other at right angles, which thus formed a striking contrast with the narrow and crooked streets of Athens. (Hermann, Disputatio de Hippodamo Milesio, Marburg, 1841.)

The entrances to the three harbours of Peiraeeus were rendered very narrow by means of moles, which left only a passage in the middle for two or three triremes to pass abreast. These moles were a continuation of the walls of Peiraeeus, which ran down to either side of the mouths of the harbours; and the three entrances to the harbours (Τὰ κλεῖθρα τῶν λιμένων) thus formed, as it were, three large sea-gates in the walls. Either end of each mole was protected by a tower; and across the entrance chains were extended in time of war. Harbours of this kind were called by the ancients closed ports (κλειστοὶ λιμένες), and the walls were called χηλαί, or claws, from their stretching out into the sea like the claws of a crab. It is stated by ancient authorities that the three harbours of the Peiraeeus were closed ports (Hesych. sub voce Ζέα; Schol. ad Aristoph. Pac. 145; comp. Thuc. 2.94; Plut. Demetr. 7; Xen. Hell. 2.2. 4); and in each of them we find remains of the chelae, or moles. Hence these three harbours cannot mean, as Leake supposed, three divisions of the larger harbour since there are traces of only one set of chelae in the latter, and it is impossible to understand how it could have been divided into three closed ports.

(i.) Phanári,

the smallest of the three harbours, was anciently called MUNYCHIA from the fortress rising above it. It was only used by ships of war; and we learn, from the inscriptions already referred to, that it contained 82 ϝεώσοικοι, or ship-houses. This harbour was formerly supposed to be Phalerum; but it was quite unsuitable for trading purposes, being shut in by steep heights, and having no direct communication with the Asty. Moreover, we can hardly conceive the Athenians to have been so blind as to have used this harbour for centuries, and to have neglected the more commodious harbours of Stratiotikí and Dráko, in its immediate vicinity. The modern name of Phanári is probably owing to a lighthouse having stood at its entrance in the Byzantine period.

(ii.) Stratiotikí

(called Paschalimáni by Ulrichs), the middle of the three harbours, is the ancient ZEA (Ζέα), erroneously called by the earlier topographers Munychia. (Timeaus, Lex., Plat.; Phot. Lex. s. v. Ζέα.) It was the largest of the three harbours for ships of war, since it contained 196 ship-houses, whereas Munychia had only 82, and Cantharus only 94. Some of the ship-houses at Zea appear to have been still in existence in the time of Pausanias; for though he does not mention Zea, the ϝεώσοικοι which he speaks of (1.1.3) were apparently at this port. This harbour probably derived its name from Artemis, who was worshipped among the Athenians under the surname of Zea, and not, as Meursius supposed, from the corn-vessels, which were confined to the Emporium in the great harbour. [p. 1.307]

(iii.) Dráko or Porto Leone,

the largest of the three harbours, was commonly called by the ancients simply PEIRAEEUS (Πειραιεύς), or THE HARBOUR ( λίμην). It derives its modern name from a colossal lion of white marble, which Spon and Wheler observed upon the beach, when they visited Athens; and which was carried to Venice, after the capture of Athens by the Venetians in 1687. Dráko is the name used by the modern Greeks, since δράκων, which originally meant only a serpent, now signifies a monster of any kind, and was hence applied to the marble lion.

It has been already stated that Leake and other writers, misled by a passage of the Scholiast on Aristophanes (Pac. 145), divided the harbour of Peiraeeus into three separate ports, named Cantharus, Aphrodisium, and Zea, but the words of the Scholiast warrant no such conclusion:-- Πειραιεύς λιμένας ἔχει τρεῖς, πάντας κλειστούς: εἷς μὲν Κανθάρου λίμην--ἐν τὰ νεώρια. εἶτα τὸ Ἀφροδίσιον: εἶτα κύκλῳ τοῦ λιμένος στοαὶ πέντε. It is evident that the Scholiast does not intend to give the names of the three harbours of Peiraeeus; but, after mentioning Cantharus, he proceeds to speak of the buildings in its immediate vicinity, of which the Aphrodisium, a temple of Aphrodite, was one; and then followed the five Stoae or Colonnades. Leake supposed Zea to be the name of the bay situated on the right hand after entering the harbour, Aphrodisium to be the name of the middle or great harbour, and Cantharus to be the name of the inner harbour, now filled up by alluvial deposits of the Cephissus. It is, however, certain that the last-mentioned spot never formed part of the harbour of Peiraeeus, since between this marsh and the harbour traces of the ancient wall have been discovered; and it is very probable that this marsh is the one called Halae (Ἁλαί) by Xenophon. (Hell. 2.4.34.)

The harbour of Peiraeeus appears to have been divided into only two parts. Of these, the smaller one, occupying the bay to the right hand of the entrance to the harbour, was named Cantharus. It was the third of the Athenian harbours for ships of war, and contained 94 ship-houses. Probably upon the shores of the harbour of Cantharus the armoury (ὁπλοθήκη) of Philo stood, containing arms for 1000 ships. (Strab. ix. p.395; Plin. Nat. 7.37. s. 38; Cic. de Orat. 1.14; Vitruv. vii. Praef.; Appian, App. Mith. 41.)

The remainder of the harbour, being about two-thirds of the whole, was called Emporium, and was appropriated to merchant vessels. (Timaeus, Lex. Plat.; Harpocrat. s. v. Δεῖγμα.) The surrounding shore, which was also called Emporium, contained the five Stoae or Colonnades mentioned above, all of which were probably appropriated to mercantile purposes. One of these was called the Macra Stoa (μακρὰ στοὰ), or the Long Colonnade (Paus. 1.1.3); a second was the Deigma (Δεῖγμα), or place where merchants exhibited samples of their goods for sale (Harpocrat. s. v. Δεῖγμα; Schol. ad Aristoph. Equit. 974; Dem. c. Lacrit. p. 932); a third was the Alphitopolis (Ἀλφιτοπῶλις), or Corn-Exchange, said to have been built by Pericles (Schol. ad Aristoph. Equit. 547): of the other two Stoae the names have not been preserved. Between the Stoae of the Emporium and Cantharus stood the Aphrodisium, or temple of Aphrodite, built by Conon after his victory at Cnidus. (Paus. l.c.; Schol. ad Aristoph. Pac. l.c.) The limits of the Emporium towards Cantharus were marked by a boundary stone discovered in situ in 1843, and bearing the inscription:--


i. e., Ἐμπορίου καὶ ὁδοῦ ὅρος. The forms of the letters, and the use of the H for the spiritus asper, prove that the inscription belongs to the period before the Peloponnesian war. The stone may have been erected upon the first foundation of Peiraeeus by Themistocles, or when the town was laid out regularly by Hippodamus in the time of Pericles. It probably stood in a street leading from the Emporium to the docks of the harbour of Cantharus.

3. Topography of Munychia and Peiraeeus.

The site of Munychia, which was the Acropolis of Peiraeeus, has been already explained. Remains of its fortifications may still be seen on the top of the hill, now called Castella, above the harbour of Phanári. From its position it commanded the whole of the Peiraic peninsula, and its three harbours (ὑποπίπτουσι δ᾽ αὐτῷ λιμένες τρεῖς, Strab. ix. p.395); and whoever obtained possession of this hill became master of the whole of Peiraeeus. Epimenides is said to have foreseen the importance of this position. (Plut. Sol. 12; D. L. 1.114.) Soon after the close of the Peloponnesian war, the seizure of Munychia by Thrasybulus and his party enabled them to carry on operations with success against the Thirty at Athens. (Xen. Hell. 2.4) The successors of Alexander the Great kept a Macedonian garrison in Munychia for a long period, and by this means secured the obedience of Athens. The first Macedonian garrison was placed in this fortress by Antipater after the defeat of the Greeks at Crannon, B.C. 322. (Paus. 1.25.4; Plut. Dem. 28.) When Athens surrendered to Cassander, in B.C. 318, Munychia was also garrisoned by the latter; and it was by the support of these troops that Demetrius Phalereus governed Athens for the next ten years. In B.C. 307 the Macedonians were expelled from Munychia by Demetrius Poliorcetes; but the latter, on his return from Asia in B.C. 299, again placed a garrison in Munychia, and in the Museium also. These garrisons were expelled from both fortresses by the Athenians, under Olympiodorus, when Demetrius was deprived of the Macedonian kingdom in B.C. 287. (Paus. 1.25.4, seq., 26.1, seq.; Diod. 18.48, 74, 20.45; Plut. Demetr. 8, seq., 46, Phoc. 31, seq.) During the greater part of the reign of Antigonus and of his son Demetrius II., the Macedonians had possession of Munychia; but soon after the death of Demetrius, Aratus purchased the departure of the Macedonian garrison by the payment of a large sum of money. (Plut. Arat. 34; Paus. 2.8.5.) Strabo (l.c.) speaks of the hill of Munychia as full of hollows and excavations, and well adapted for dwelling-houses. In the time of Strabo the whole of the Peiraeeus was in ruins, and the hollows to which he alludes were probably the remains of cisterns. The sides of the hill sloping down to the great harbour appear to have been covered with houses rising one above another in the form of an amphitheatre, as in the city of Rhodes, which was laid out by the same architect, and was also celebrated for its beauty.

Within the fortress of Munychia was a temple of Artemis Munychia, who was the guardian deity of this citadel. The temple was a celebrated place of asylum for state criminals. (Xen. Hell. 2.4. 11; [p. 1.308]Paus. 1.1.4; Dem. de Coron. p. 222, Reiske; Lys. c. Agorat. pp. 460, 462, Reiske.) Near the preceding, and probably also within the fortress, was the Bendideium (Βενδίδειον), or temple of the Thracian Artemis Bendis, whose festival, the Bendideia, was celebrated on the day before the lesser Panathenaea. (Xen. Hell. 2.4. 11; Plat. de Rep. i. pp. 327, 354.) On the western slope of the hill was the Dionysiac theatre, facing the great harbour: it must have been of considerable size, as the assemblies of the Athenian people were sometimes held in it. (Thuc. 8.93 ; Xen. Hell. 2.4. 32; Lys. c. Agorat. pp. 464, 479; comp. Dem. de Fals. Leg. p. 379.) It was in this theatre that Socrates saw a performance of one of the plays of Euripides. (Aelian, Ael. VH 2.13.) Some modern writers distinguish between the theatre at Munychia and another in Peiraeesus; but the ancient writers mention only one theatre in the peninsula, called indifferently the Peiraic or the Munychian theatre, the latter name being given to it from its situation upon the hill of Munychia. The ruins near the harbour of Zea, which were formerly regarded as those of the Peiraic theatre, belonged probably to another building.

The proper agora of Peiraeeus was called the Hippodameian Agora (Ἱπποδάμειος ἀγορά), to distinguish it from the Macra Stoa, which was also used as an agora. The Hippodameian Agora was situated near the spot where the two Long Walls joined the wall of Peiraeeus; and a broad street led from it up to the citadel of Munychia. (Xen. Hell. 2.4. 11; Andoc. de Myst. p. 23, Reiske; Dem. c. Timoth. p. 1190.)

At the entrance to the great harbour there was on the right hand the promontory Alcimus (Ἄλκιμος), on the left hand the promontory Eetionia (Ἠετιωνία, or Ἠετιώνεια). On Alcimus stood the tomb of Themistocles, whose bones are said to have been brought from Magnesia in Asia Minor, and buried at this place. (Plut. Them. 32; Paus. 1.1.2). Eetionia was a tongue of land commanding the entrance to the harbour ; and it was here that the Four Hundred in B.C. 411 erected a fort, in order to prevent more effectually the entrance of the Athenian fleet, which was opposed to them. (Thuc. 8.90 ; Dem. c. Theocr. p. 1343 ; Harpocrat., Suid., Steph. B. sub voce Ἠετιώνεια.) The small bay on the outer side of the promontory was probably the κωφὸς λίμην mentioned by Xenophon. (Hell. 2.4.31.)

The buildings around the shore of the great harbour have been already mentioned. Probably behind the Macra Stoa was the temenus of Zeus and Athena, which Pausanias (1.1.3) mentions as one of the most remarkable objects in Peiraeeus, and which is described by other writers as the temple of Zeus Soter. (Strab. ix. p.396; Liv. 31.30; Plin. Nat. 34.8. s. 19. § 14.) Phreattys, which was one of the courts of justice for the trial of homicides, was situated in Peiraeeus; and as this court is described indifferently ἐν Ζέᾳ or ἐν Φρεαττοῖ, it must be placed either in or near the harbour of Zea. The accused pleaded their cause on board ship, while the judges sat upon the shore. (Paus. 1.28.11; Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 645; Pollux, 8.120; Becker, Anecd. Graec. i. p. 311.)

Peiraeeus never recovered from the blow inflicted upon it by its capture by Sulla, who destroyed its fortifications and arsenals. So rapid was its decline that in the time of Strabo it had become “a small village, situated around the ports and the temple of Zeus Soter.” (Strab. ix. p.395.)

The most important work on the Topography of Athens is Col. Leake's Topography of Athens, London, 1841, 2nd edition. In common with all other writers on the subject, the writer of the present article is under the greatest obligations to Col. Leake, although he has had occasion to differ from him on some points. The other modern works from which most assistance have been derived are Forchhammer, Topographie von Athen, in Kieler Philologische Studien, Kiel, 1841; Kruse, Hellas, vol. ii. pt. i., Leipzig, 1826; K. O. Müller, art. Attika in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopädie, vol. vi., translated by Lockhart, London, 1842; Wordsworth, Athens and Attica, London, 1836; Stuart and Revett, Antiquities of Athens, London, 1762--1816, 4 vols., fo. (2nd ed. 1825--1827); Dodwell, Tour through Greece, vol. i. London, 1819; Prokesch, Denkwürdigkeiten, &c., vol. ii., Stuttgart, 1836; Mure, Journal of a Tour in Greece, vol. ii. Edinburgh, 1842.


1 i. e. The chryselephautine statue of the goddess in the Parthenon, the hands of which were of ivory.

2 i. e. The bronze colossal statue of Athena Promachus, standing near the Propylaea (Πυλαίμαχος). Her shield and spear are here ludicrously converted into a χύτρα and τορύνη. Her gigantic form is expressed by ὑπερέχει.

3 i. e. The Athena Polias in the Erechtheium: this line is a convincing proof that the Peplus was dedicated to her.

4 The exact measurements of the Parthenon, as determined by Mr. Penrose, are:--

  English Feet.
Front, on the upper step 101.341.
Flank 228.141.
Length of the cella on the upper step 193.733.
Breadth of the cella on the upper step, measured in the Opisthodomus 71.330.
Length of the Naos within the walls 98.095.
Breadth of the Naos within the walls 63.01.
Length of the Opisthodomus within the walls 43.767.

5 The words of Vitruvius in the usual editions are:--“Hypaethros vero decastylos est in pronao et postico: reliqua omnia habet quae dipteros, sed interiore parte columnas in altitudine duplices, remotas a parietibus ad circuitionem ut porticus peristyliorum. Medium autem sub divo est sine tecto, aditusque valvarum ex utrinque parte in pronao et postico. Hujus autem exemplar Romae non est, sed Athenis octastylos et in temple Olympio.” Now, as the Parthenon was the only octastyle at Athens, it is supposed that Vitruvius referred to this temple as at example of the Hypaethros, more especially as it had one of the distinguishing characteristics--of his hypaethros, namely, an upper row of interior columns, between which and the walls there was an ambulation like that of a peristyle. (Leake, p. 562.) But it seems absurd to say “Hypaethros decastylos est,” and then to give an octastyle at Athens as an example. It has been conjectured with great probability that the “octastylos” is an interpolation, and that the latter part of the passage ought to be read: “Hujus autem exemplar Romae non est, sed Athenis in templo Olympio.” Vitruvius would thus refer to the great temple of Zeus Olympius at Athens, which we know was a complete example of the hypaethros of Vitruvius.

6 Hence it is aptly compared by Mure to a theatre, the shell of which, instead of curving upwards, slopes downwards from the orchestra.

7 Many writers, whom Wordsworth has followed, have changed ὧδε ἦν into ὠδεῖον; but this emendation is not only unnecessary, but is exceedingly improbable, because Odea were very rare in Greece at the time when Dicaearchus wrote. The word ἦν may have been introduced by the excerptor to indicate that the theatre described by Dicaearchus was not in existence in his time; or it may have been used by Dicaearchus himself instead of ἐστὶ according to a well-known use of the Attic writers. (See Fuhr, ad loc.

8 An Odeium (ὠδεῖον) was, in its form and arrangements, very similar to a theatre, from which it differed chiefly by being roofed over, in order to retain the sound. It appears to have been originally designed chiefly for musical rehearsals, in subordination to the great choral performances in the theatre, and consequently a much smaller space was required for the audience.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: